Message from the Queen

Lord Luce: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
	"I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

International Finance Facility

Baroness Northover: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they hope to make regarding the international finance facility for the relief of world poverty at the G8 finance Ministers meeting on 10 June.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the IFF is building real momentum. All European members of the G7, as well as Sweden, have expressed support. The UK will continue to press for full support for the IFF, which could immediately raise the additional finance needed to meet the millennium development goals by 2015, in G8 meetings as well as in other fora. Meanwhile, we continue to work towards the rapid launch of the pilot IFF—the IFF for immunisation—later this year.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Obviously I welcome any measures taken to increase the amount of aid that goes to the poorest countries. The IFF aims to raise $50 billion for aid. Can the Minister tell the House what the implications will be if the USA and Japan do not sign up to that this weekend or at Gleneagles? As perhaps the Minister indicated, are the Government now seeking to link up with the Bill Gates proposal on AIDS, malaria and polio which, although very welcome, would raise only about one-tenth of the amount of the IFF, therefore still leaving a huge challenge, as he will appreciate, if we are to reduce poverty by 2015?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her support for what the Government are seeking to achieve. The IFF is a central feature of the development agenda for the UK presidencies of the G8 and EU in 2005. One of the advantages of the IFF is that it can go ahead without the participation of all donor countries. We want to achieve as much support as possible and we are continuing to work with the US and other countries to identify the most appropriate way to help them to participate. Clearly, the fewer that participate, the less impact it will have.
	As to other initiatives, the pilot scheme dealing with immunisation is a smaller project. But it is intended, in part, to demonstrate the technical feasibility of the IFF itself. It will disburse an additional $4 billion over 10 years. Work is also being done by the Government in relation to APCs—advance purchase commitments—which, it is to be hoped, will have a big impact on bringing forward more research and development into the production of appropriate drugs and vaccines.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, as the author of the first-ever modest proposal for debt forgiveness for the poorest of the poor—which eventually came into being as the so-called Toronto terms at the Toronto summit of 1988—I welcome that aspect of what Her Majesty's Government are doing. But given that the biggest problem for economic development in sub-Saharan Africa and, indeed, in a number of other countries is corruption, and given that the only solution to corruption is the education of an honest leadership cadre in those countries, is it not perverse that the one form of aid that is relevant—that is, helping the brightest and best people of these countries to be educated in our universities—is the one form on which the Government are cutting back most severely?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his earlier participation in the work on debt relief. Obviously debt relief is one component of the Government's approach, together with the IFF and the development programme itself. As to corruption, clearly governance is a key issue. One of the benefits of the IFF arrangement is that because it concentrates and co-ordinates aid, it is better able to apply that to countries which are committed to improving their governance and to dealing with corruption more effectively. The Government have recognised that.
	As to the opportunity for people to come to UK universities—which I think is the point the noble Lord was making—perhaps I can revert to that because I am not aware of key prohibitions which are preventing that happening.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in addition to trying to meet the millennium development goals, the international finance facility could play a major role in meeting the crucially important proposal of the Commission for Africa relating to the strengthening of African universities and ensuring that they have full access to the latest technologies and the global pool of knowledge?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, that is right, although the key focus of the IFF is towards the millennium development goals. That is how it will be applied. It would cover, I believe, the point made by the noble Lord. But its key focus is to make sure that we achieve those goals within the time limits originally set down. Without the IFF there is no prospect of the world meeting those goals, which means that more youngsters will go without education and more people will be living in poverty. That is why it is so important that it succeeds.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while it is certainly true that there are many countries with corrupt leaders in Africa, equally many countries with debts are hardly at all corrupt, such as Mali and Senegal? Even Botswana has some debt. It is extremely important not to lump Africa together as all one kind of a place.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I agree absolutely with those comments. The noble Baroness is completely right. We should not stigmatise all regimes. Many are making good progress.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what discussions have taken place with the World Development Movement, the World Bank and the IMF about the IFF? Following on from the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, why are all African countries lumped together under the African Commission?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the IFF will be focused on a range of countries and not just African countries. It was supported by the African Commission, but, as I understand it, it is to be more widely applied than that.
	I am sure that discussions have been held with the World Bank and others. I have some notes on those who have supported the IFF and asked for it to be taken forward. Perhaps I should write to the noble Baroness to set that out in some detail. But the IFF has been the subject of rigorous appraisal. That is why the agencies are asking that the world makes progress on it and that as many countries as are willing to do so sign up and take it forward.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are well into the eighth minute.

Civil Service Draft Bill

Lord Sheldon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the results of their consultation on their draft Civil Service Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government are carefully considering the responses to the consultation. They will make a statement when they have completed their considerations.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is seven years since this process started? It was said that there would be a consultation, and we have heard this again and again. Does it not suggest that there is some disinclination to proceed with a great deal of speed on this matter?
	Until recently, the demand for an Act had been rather limited, because the aims of the Civil Service, as set out by the Northcote-Trevelyan report 150 years ago, had largely been met. But, since then, we have seen special advisers, two of whom exercise executive powers. So the situation has changed and this is why we need an early Act that tells us just what is happening.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I suppose that seven years is a short period of government, when taken in the longer view. This is obviously a very delicate exercise and an important constitutional issue. It is only right that full and proper consultation takes place on this matter before any Bill is considered fit for introduction.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, this House is full of surprises. I never thought that I would stand here in common cause with the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, but I do. We know from top-up fees that the party opposite does not always mean what it says in its manifesto. Does the omission of a Civil Service Bill in the Queen's Speech mean that the Government no longer wish to safeguard the independence of what was once the best civil service in the world?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware that it is not still the best civil service in the world. Our Government have taken very important steps during the past eight years to ensure that its independence goes without question. We will continue to stick to that fundamental and important principle.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords—

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, will the Minister give any indication of the fate of Sir Patrick Brown's report on civil servants passing into business positions after they leave the Civil Service? In view of the Prime Minister's expressed interest in promoting a cross-flow between business and the Civil Service, can we have some indication of what the Government think of the adequacy of the current arrangements, which, in many countries, to protect the public from any impropriety, are regularised by statute?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's first question, I think that the monitoring arrangements for those who are in the employ of the Government and former Ministers work extremely well. Regular reports are published on that. Those who have served in public office receive careful advice when they move from the public into the private sector.
	The Government have paid very careful attention to the issues that the noble Lord raised in his second question. It is for that reason that we continue to keep carefully under review codes of conduct and advice given, and that we ensure that all Ministers understand the rules and conduct themselves in an entirely appropriate way so far as the public service is concerned.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, will the Minister comment on a deeply offensive episode following the general election, when hundreds of Treasury civil servants were lined up in serried ranks to cheer the Chancellor of the Exchequer back into the Treasury? Will not many former permanent secretaries of the Treasury have turned in their grave at a demonstration of partiality from a civil service, which never, ever ought to happen?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that many people cheer the fact that our Government were returned for a third term, and I am sure that many civil servants felt very much like cheering the best Chancellor that this country has had in more than 100 years.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, will the Minister not answer my question?

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Barnett: My Lords, if my noble friend considers seven years to be a short time, what does he consider to be a long time? When does he think that my noble friend Lord Sheldon will be able to get an answer to his Question?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, has raised Questions relating to a Civil Service Bill for as long as I have had the responsibility for answering from these Benches, and no doubt he will continue to do so. It is quite right that he does, because we in government believe in ensuring that the highest possible standards exist in public life. We have pursued a course of careful consultation on this issue because we believe that it is important.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is the Liberal Democrats' turn.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I recognise that if ever the Civil Service Bill in the consultation paper were to come before Parliament, it would be likely to be amended and, I dare say, improved. However, would the Minister be prepared to help us to contain our impatience by assuring us that while we wait for the Bill to appear, the Government will at least observe the principles and provisions contained in the Bill?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that this Government have a good record on this and that we have been extremely attentive to those issues. I must say that when the party opposite was in government, they had 18 years of opportunity to introduce a Civil Service Bill. They obviously took a self-denying ordinance there and failed to do so. We have given the matter very careful consideration; there is a proper period of consultation, which we are going through. All the issues to which the noble Lord makes a general reference are the ones that we believe that we should focus on.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is the turn of the Lib Dems, if there is any fairness in this Question Time.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Is the Minister aware that the commitment to have such a Bill was made in the Cook-Maclennan agreement in 1994 and in the Labour Party manifesto of 1997? Is he also aware that there is a high-powered Mexican delegation meeting the Cabinet Secretary this afternoon and listening to these proceedings, who told me this morning that they have had legislation for two years that stops special advisers giving instructions to civil servants? Might the Minister consider going to Mexico?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have a horrible feeling that there are a few Members of your Lordships' House who might like to see me going to Mexico. In fact, I might actually quite enjoy the experience.
	I was aware of the first two points that the noble Lord made, but I was unaware of his third point. No doubt the Mexicans are seeking to learn from best practice in this country.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with respect, we have to move on to the next Question.

e-Government Unit

Lord Harris of Haringey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the time spent preparing the e-Government Unit's document, Tomatoes are not the only fruit: a rough guide to taxonomies, thesauri, ontologies and the like, represents value for money.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, yes, the document was published in 2002 by the Office of the e-Envoy, at the request of technical users in government who were new to the subject. It was produced in-house at an estimated cost of less than £100.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that information. I ask him to congratulate the civil servants concerned on the diligence and speed with which they must have produced 12,000 words and four charts on the subject of Tomatoes are not the only fruit, containing such gems of information as:
	"How long has it been for many of us since the primary meaning of the word 'mouse' has been 'a small furry mammal that frightens elephants?'",
	or the information that carrots can be either salad or root vegetables. That will no doubt come in very helpful in promoting e-government.
	Can we also congratulate the authors of the Guide to Meta-Tagging with the Integrated Public Sector Vocabulary, which gives another eight pages of valuable advice and information? It includes the information that the phrase "common agricultural policy" may appear under the phrase "European Union" or under "Farming" but will mean the same under both.
	Given the diligence of the civil servants in the unit, can the Minister assure the House that the same energy and effectiveness is being applied to delivering information security throughout the public sector? Are such arrangements susceptible, or likely to be susceptible, to external challenge?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall of course pass on my noble friend's congratulations. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that civil servants are, as we speak, listening carefully to his kind congratulations and warm words.
	As to my noble friend's second point, there is an important issue at root here—I said that with a straight face. The Government are paying careful attention to those information security issues. The document, although it has attracted a certain levity, is, I am sure, most useful to those who work in government IT services.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the Minister not pass on congratulations to the civil servants on producing a document that is completely incomprehensible to a normal person and really does not make any sense at all? Why cannot they learn to write English?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, having looked at the document, which has a modest number of words, I disagree with the noble Earl. I believe that IT users in the business will probably find it very helpful and useful. Certainly, when I read it, I began to understand notions relating to taxonomies, thesauri and ontologies.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, although the use of what the Civil Service calls "controlled vocabulary" may operate as a disincentive to get online to the Government, can the Government say whether there has been a significant improvement in access to e-government over the past two years? It was made clear in June 2003 that only one-tenth of the population was using the online e-government services, as compared with 50 per cent of the population in Canada, with its single portal.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there have been improvements, and I am sure that the e-Government Unit is aware of its role and responsibility in ensuring that those improvements continue. There is an increasing number of visits to government websites and increased participation—as I understand—in www.govtalk.gov.uk. So I believe that people are learning their way around the system.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, would the Minister comment on how successful the OGC has been in implementing Sir Peter Gershon's e-government efficiency review?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can only at large and in general say that I believe that there have been improvements. The work of Sir Peter Gershon has been widely welcomed throughout government, and our IT record is one of continued improvement and success.

Viscount Eccles: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if he were unfortunate enough to have cancer of the bladder, medical advice would be that he should eat no more tomatoes? Is that information on the website?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, not that I am aware, no.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I really wonder whether the noble Lord is aware of the extent to which he has attracted to himself this morning the wholehearted sympathy of the House at the appalling ordeal that he has had to go through in not giving a single answer to a question and really fluffing what he has said beyond the limits of comprehension.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord always makes generous remarks across the House, and I suppose that I have to be the beneficiary of those remarks on some occasions.

Diabetes: Insulin Injection Pens

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they intend to ensure that the National Health Service continues to be supplied with actrapid insulin injection pens.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, due to declining use over recent years, Novo Nordisk is planning to discontinue the supply of actrapid insulin injection pens. Naturally, the Government have no powers to insist that a company continues to market a product. However, officials from the Department of Health have made representations to the company to extend the discontinuation date to enable patients to have a smooth transition to alternative products. I should stress that alternatives are available and I do not believe that patients will be at risk when they change their supply of insulin, although I do understand that it leaves patients without access to their preferred product.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does she understand that diabetics who have to change their insulin therapies do so in the need of having advice from the diabetologist, or else they have to resort to carrying cumbersome bottles and syringes as an alternative? Given that the suppliers themselves acknowledge that these changes will have a significant impact on the lives of people using those insulin pens and the workload of professionals caring for them, will her department press them to extend the five months given for the phase-out of the cartridges and ensure an 18-month delay so that the change can happen properly?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I understand the discomfort and the additional burden that will be placed on sufferers of diabetes as a result of these changes. Clearly, that is regrettable. Many of the concerns expressed by clinicians and patients relate to the short timescale involved. It is too short and that is precisely why officials from the Department of Health have made representations. They last made representations on 26 May when they pushed for an extension of the discontinuation date to April 2006. However, the company refused to comply and the agreed date is now the end of December.
	I should stress, however, that the department is working constructively with the company, which has agreed to pay for additional clinics, patient contact mechanisms, information and advice. The company is also working closely with Diabetes UK to ensure that patients do not endure too much suffering as a result of this measure.

Lord Addington: My Lords, having heard what the Minister has said and in view of the considerable purchasing power of the NHS for these kinds of products, will she gives us an assurance that pressure will be applied to ensure that any changes—which could lead to greater costs for the NHS if treatment is not successful or is not contained—are incorporated at the start of the process and not at the last minute?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that such pressure should be applied at the beginning of the process. That may well have happened in this case but I am not aware of it. Guidelines on the notification of product discontinuation have been agreed jointly by the Department of Health and the British pharmaceutical industry, but these are voluntary. That is why we have been in discussion with the company. However, I shall seek to ensure that in future negotiations with companies which wish to discontinue products are held very early in the process.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that diabetes is a very complicated condition? Will she give the House an assurance that the alternatives to actrapid will be as good?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I well understand that diabetes is a very complex condition. Having spoken to officials I can give an assurance that the alternatives to actrapid are, indeed, as good. I should report to the House the good point that, further to discussions between the Department of Health and the company, the company has agreed to inform patients not only of its own alternatives to actrapid but also of those produced by other companies.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us why the company is giving up the production of these instruments that are highly valued by diabetics?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, that decision is entirely up to the company. It would not be proper for the Government to comment on the decisions taken by the company. These things happen from time to time. New products come on the market all the time and companies sometimes decide to discontinue products, but that is entirely a decision for them.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, is it not the case that many people with diabetes see their specialist only about once a year, in which case they may well be caught short by this announcement? I believe my noble friend indicated that the company concerned was sending information about alternative products to such patients. However, what arrangements are being put in place for regular appointments with specialists to be brought forward so that patients can benefit from medical advice in respect of those alternatives?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that patients will not be caught short. Everything possible is being done to ensure that all patients are contacted to arrange an appointment with their clinicians to enable them to be properly assessed and to be given guidance on appropriate alternatives. That process is happening now. I assure my noble friend that the Department of Health will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that patients do not suffer.

Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that patients who inject animal insulins are similarly anxious that the supply of that product may be withdrawn at short notice, just as the actrapid pens will be? What comfort can the Minister give that group of patients that animal insulins will not be withdrawn at short notice?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the department has received a number of representations about the continued availability of animal insulins. Both animal and synthetic insulins continue to be available on prescription. All decisions about appropriate treatment regimes for people with diabetes should be made between the individual concerned and their healthcare advisers. I understand that 80 per cent of diabetic patients are currently treated with human insulins and that that number is rising. However, I can give an assurance that animal insulins will continue to be available for those patients who require them.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, will the Minister confirm my understanding that there has been a significant rise in diabetes in children because of poor diet and lack of exercise? If that matter is rather wide of the Question and the noble Baroness would prefer to write to me, I shall understand.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I would be very happy to write to the noble Earl. However, in the mean time, I should say that the department is, of course, acutely conscious of the link between obesity and diabetes. The prevention and management of obesity is already at the heart of many of our priority areas. Indeed, I understand that Sue Roberts, the National Clinical Director for Diabetes, is in discussion with Professor Aynsley-Green, the Children's Commissioner, on these related issues to see how we can best move forward to ensure that children with obesity do not suffer from diabetes.

Business of the House: Debates this Day

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Park of Monmouth set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Viscount Eccles to two hours.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland

Baroness Park of Monmouth: rose to call attention to the situation in Northern Ireland; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to his new post. We all look forward greatly to working with him.
	In the past eight years Sinn Fein/IRA has won concession after concession. We have dismantled our security apparatus and greatly weakened the police. It is still recruiting, training and buying new arms. HMG's policy has, in effect, been one of appeasement. However, there are, in the past year, some encouraging signs, notably the excellent work of the IMC, the Organised Crime Agency and the Assets Recovery Agency. But we should look at the balance sheet since the Belfast agreement of 1997. First, as regards, law and order, half the experienced officers in the then RUC and many of the best Special Branch sources have been retired—the sources under the new ethical policy. Respectable citizens, curiously enough, are not best placed to penetrate criminal groups, and the police are therefore without eyes and ears when they are needed. They have lost the very people who could penetrate the paramilitaries and who often have very good reasons to help the law.
	After the emasculation of the force to meet its needs, Sinn Fein/IRA proceeded to shoot one of the young new entry and Gerry Adams said then that its attitude to the police had not changed. Many of the DPPs set up to bring the police closer to the community have been attacked. Because of the extreme difficulty of getting witnesses to testify in court and juries to serve—five were empanelled in succession on one case—justice is regularly denied to citizens, and a rising number of prosecutions are failing because the complainant declines to proceed. The reason is the malign power of intimidation exercised by the paramilitaries within their communities.
	Moreover, Gerry Adams has publicly said, first to the people of Omagh, and then in answer to a question from me as recently as this year, that Sinn Fein/IRA does not recognise British justice. It is, he said, an oxymoron. Evidently the Saville inquiry, which has so far cost £155 million, and the judicial review which Sinn Fein/IRA itself recently put through the courts, are excepted from this policy. Most recently, the McCartney case has exposed Sinn Fein/IRA's absolute determination to refuse justice to its victims and to protect murderers. The brave sisters had to go to the EU for funds for a civil action, while the people of Omagh were granted help by Her Majesty's Government only last year for a civil action, and so far they have received only £354,373 compared to the £155 million, still rising, for the Bloody Sunday inquiry.
	The citizens of Northern Ireland are regularly denied justice, not by the state but by violent paramilitaries who keep them in a state of fear in their daily lives, exact tribute from families, small shopkeepers and businesses, and exile to the mainland members of the community who have crossed them, where, incidentally, they get no support from Her Majesty's Government. They would be better off as asylum seekers in their own country. No one dares complain to the police, go to court, or talk to the media; and this in a free country—the United Kingdom. This happened before the Belfast agreement, but it has continued ever since, despite assurances given both in the agreement and by the Prime Minister. We let out all the prisoners. The then Secretary of State, when asked why we did not halt the flow of releases until the paramilitaries stopped their beatings and shootings, refused, saying that they must be expected to do "a little domestic housekeeping". Yet the agreement expressly guaranteed the human right to choose where to live and the right to freedom from sectarian harassment.
	Thanks to Sinn Fein/IRA, the forces of law and order have been severely weakened and those living under the heel of the paramilitaries are denied their human rights. Since 1997, Her Majesty's Government and the Dublin government have appeared to have two aims: to persuade the IRA to disarm and therefore to end the terrorist threat to the mainland, and to encourage Sinn Fein, partly through the new power-sharing agreements and the mechanisms for North-South structures to become no more than an all-Ireland political party. Every concession has been made to that end. First, it was the release of prisoners and the Saville inquiry; then the de Chastelain commission to enable the IRA to hand in all its arms without loss of face. We all know the sorry outcome of that procedure and its irrelevance since the PIRA has regularly brought in new arms since 1997, including a new lightweight machine gun, and it is still recruiting and training. I suggest that in any further discussion of IRA arms, including those acquired since 1997, Her Majesty's Government should insist on the verification being carried out, as the Act provides, by qualified US and Canadian ordnance officers and the results being publicly reported. Neither the general nor the clergyman proposed by the IRA would, with respect, know a rocket-launcher or Semtex if they saw them.
	In 1999, the IRA saw a prospect for a media coup, when P O'Neill announced that they just might know where a number of those whom they "executed" might be buried. The Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Act 1999 was welcomed with joy by families hoping at last to be able to bury their son, or daughter, or husband. The Act provided expressly that any forensic or other evidence found, whether on the body or at the scene, would not be admissible in any criminal proceedings, including private prosecutions, anywhere in the UK. The murderers were to be protected. The IRA basked in favourable publicity. Two bodies were found—that of Jean McConville not until some years later—and the families were ordered by Gerry Adams to conduct discreet, private burials. Not least, compensation for the families of the victims was expressly ruled out. Though there are to be several inquiries at the request of the IRA, including on Pat Finucane as a result of the Cory report, no one has proposed to inquire into the disappeared.
	The splendid new Independent Monitoring Commission has exposed and attacked the monstrous paramilitary grip on the community. Interviewed when the 2003 proposals were being discussed, Martin McGuinness said flatly that Sinn Fein/IRA would not consider allowing exiles to return, as that would not be "for the good of the community". It has not therefore happened. He was, however, more than ready to require the return of the on-the-runs, those who fled Northern Ireland after committing horrific murders and now wish to return scot-free to the bosom of their families. Despite setting up the Bloomfield commission on victims, Her Majesty's Government have done very little for them, though there have been plenty of focus groups, victims groups and charities, some providing a happy home for Sinn Fein/IRA infiltrators, to the great danger of the people they are supposed to help.
	So far, I have spoken only of the denial of access to the rule of law for victims and the evil power of the paramilitaries over their communities. There is, however, another aspect of the damage that they have done and are doing, and that is the devastating effect on both the political scene and civil society, and on the economy, of their illicit activities. It seems almost laughable that Sinn Fein/IRA alone was expressly exempted from the legislation requiring political parties to declare donations from aboard on the grounds of protecting the security of those donors. It is probably the richest party in the UK, certainly in the Republic of Ireland. Vote-rigging, at which it excels, is hardly necessary. Where, apart from the generous US support in the past, does the money come from? The criminal activity of paramilitaries of all parties costs the country in one year £4 million from the sale of counterfeit CDs and software. Some £600 million has been lost to the Exchequer in illegal fuel deals. Drug dealing has cost us £5 million, hydro-carbon oils £6 million, and loss of duty on alcohol and tobacco runs into tens of millions yearly. It has cost Her Majesty's Government £209 million to set up the organisations that are now successfully fighting this, apart from police costs. Perhaps the worst price that Northern Ireland pays for paramilitary criminality is the effect on legitimate business, especially on small firms, which must pay protection money or be destroyed. Multinationals will be paying up to £200,000 a week; small men £20. The effect is devastating.
	All the while, a new generation is growing up thinking that this is normal. Fortunately, 75 per cent of people recognise that the paramilitaries are responsible for virtually all organised crime, and surveys show that 95 per cent of the population believe that the police must have the main role working with the Organised Crime Agency and the Assets Recovery Agency in tackling organised crime. Sinn Fein can no longer represent itself as the brave defender against the security forces in a political context. Unfortunately, because of the extreme fear of 77 per cent of the population, and even though 79 per cent recognise that criminal activity should be reported to the police, more than 40 per cent will never do so. Crucially, only 27 per cent will give evidence in court. I owe those useful statistics to the Northern Ireland Office criminal justice directorate, and I am grateful. They demonstrate how clearly the public perceives the criminal nature of paramilitary activity, both IRA and UVF, and how powerless they feel to help to bring them to justice. We must remember that the young are growing up in this climate of fear and inability to defend their rights as citizens. All this, eight years after the Belfast agreement.
	The political fall-out from the Northern Bank raid, and still more the new readiness by the Dublin government to recognise the IRA as an immediate threat to all Ireland, have introduced a new and encouraging element into relations with Sinn Fein/IRA or, as one Irish Minister prefers to call them, IRA/Sinn Fein. Co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda is close. The Dublin government must be warily observing the electoral success of Sinn Fein, backed as it is by unlimited funds. Joint operations to end money-laundering will benefit both countries.
	Dublin's reaction to the McCartney murder was strong and unequivocal. Little things, such as the IRA's antics in Colombia, have not endeared them to the Americans either. When the EU voted money for the McCartney civil action, Sinn Fein MEPs said that Sinn Fein/IRA would never co-operate with the PSNI, about whom they alleged there were "huge doubts among nationalists". They are in danger of being regarded as dinosaurs in the real world. In short the IRA is, though rich and not short of manpower, in political baulk at present. I should say at this point that the Continuity and Real IRA movements are no more than useful lightning conductors. The Provisional IRA would never allow any genuinely independent faction to exist. They are useful as scapegoats.
	A period of benign political neglect would, I suggest, be the best course to pursue. No more concessions, no more overtures, no more agonised efforts to find yet another "quid" to secure the elusive "quo". Some of the people of Northern Ireland, a minority, voted for Sinn Fein/IRA out of a mixture of fear and loyalty to a now-outdated concept; the majority did not. They deserve to see Her Majesty's Government concentrating on ending crime and the fear and the serious economic loss that go with it. As the Prime Minister said on 27 January, "let us sideline them".
	What progress has been made, if any, on the Prime Minister's statement that he was ready to abandon the principle of inclusive all-party rule by coalition, on which the peace process has been based, unless paramilitary violence stopped? He said:
	"If it proves impossible to go forward on that inclusive basis, we will have to look for another way forward".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/05; col. 302.]
	Does that mean a possible return to devolved government without Sinn Fein/IRA, presumably with the SDLP representing nationalists' political interests? It is surely not possible to consider allowing two individuals, now publicly recognised as members of the IRA Army Council, to return to wield political power with their weapons still under the table. That would make a mockery of democracy and of Her Majesty's Government's whole nationwide policy on terrorism.
	No doubt there will have to be talks with Sinn Fein/IRA, but let them be confined to Her Majesty's Government receiving a cast-iron commitment to disband the IRA and the paramilitaries and to make no further move whatever until that act has been completed. I realise that that can be achieved only by talking to Sinn Fein/IRA; I hope that the new Secretary of State will not think he is talking to the ANC. One of the more outrageous acts of that hyena Gerry Adams, in his overweening vanity, has been to dare to compare himself to Nelson Mandela.
	Meanwhile, let the Prime Minister invite the SDLP and the Ulster parties to Downing Street and consider the modalities of restoring the Assembly. Sinn Fein/ IRA needs a period of neglect, not further attention, and—a most important point made by the monitoring commission—the culture of respect and deference to Sinn Fein/IRA must end. It is for its members to do the only thing which could really be significant—they must not only disband their antiquated army, but cease to protect the paramilitaries from justice. The world has begun to see them in their true colours, as nasty small-time terrorists and thugs battening on a decent community. Above all, we must not let them have any access to the organs of justice. Let us not dream of giving them a place on the PSNI board, for instance, in the false hope of involving them in decent government. They will destroy whatever they can from within.
	There is a phrase used in this House to deal with a recalcitrant Peer. Let us propose to Her Majesty's Government that, for the time being, Sinn Fein/IRA be not heard. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on obtaining this debate on the situation in Northern Ireland. The gracious Speech made reference to Northern Ireland, saying that the Government,
	"will work to bring about the conditions necessary for the restoration of political institutions".
	I am sure that that is the intention; we can but hope that it will be the achievement.
	I pay tribute to the work of the outgoing Secretary of State, the right honourable Paul Murphy. As Minister and then Secretary of State, he showed an attention to detail and displayed a capacity for patience that was as necessary as it was commendable.
	I now properly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on his translation to Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office. It is welcome for two reasons. The first is that, as we on the Liberal Democrat Benches strongly urged, the prolonged period of direct rule made it highly desirable to have in your Lordships' House a Minister specifically responsible for Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House handled the portfolio well and, on behalf of those of us on these Benches, I thank her very much for her work in that regard and her willingness to meet us whenever necessary. However, the likelihood of direct rule continuing to be a protracted affair, as my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton so often predicted after devolution was abruptly suspended in 2002, requires a dedicated Minister in this House.
	The second reason why the Minister's appointment is welcome is his particular talents and style. He possesses an acute political sense and has a famously straightforward approach, both qualities particularly needed in Northern Ireland. I trust that the people of Northern Ireland will relish his qualities.
	I also extend a warm welcome to the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Some of us have known him a long time. My noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton tells me that he has known him for about 35 years—ever since he was his tutor at Queen Mary College, London University. My scholarly and noble friend is always interested in quality. He claims that it was no doubt his supervision—as well, of course, as Mr Hain's innate intelligence—that led him to graduate with a brilliant first. We also send our best wishes to the new ministerial team at the Northern Ireland Office in its endeavours to revive the devolutionary settlement. We shall give it our full, although not always uncritical, support.
	There have been many steps forward, usually accompanied by steps back, in Northern Ireland. We have now had the latest and fifth IMC report. My noble friend Lord Alderdice is on the list of speakers, and I am sure that he is likely to speak about that.
	What are the highlights and significant developments of which to take note today? It is interesting to go back to the autumn and the negotiations that involved the DUP and Sinn Fein. Many of us speaking on this side of the water have often seen those as the least attractive of the political parties operating in Northern Ireland. On 5 May at the general election, we again saw those two parties somewhat triumphant, with lesser successes to the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists. Is that depressing? Not necessarily. The people of Northern Ireland want to see a proper negotiated settlement and to see devolution return. The problem is that they want the toughest people on their side to do the deal. Nevertheless, they still want an agreement.
	I shall muse a little. It seemed last autumn that a settlement was tantalisingly close. Was a deal about to be pulled off? Did the robbing of a bank and the tragic murder of two men in a pub stop it, or would it never have happened anyway? I do not suppose that we know.
	Although the two causes and their leaders are those with whom the Government feel it right to negotiate as the larger parties in Northern Ireland, it will be important to embrace all—the fallen giant of the UUP, the Alliance and the SDLP.
	We looked at the situation in Northern Ireland in the House perhaps three months ago and had a brief debate on the public finances and the order to approve the Northern Ireland budget. When one looks at finances in Northern Ireland, it is always good to say that underneath are the everlasting arms of the Barnett formula, enhanced by even further resources from the European Union. Those of us on this side of the water who feel that public expenditure well used can be a wonderful thing can only slaver at the resources available, compared to the resources in Yorkshire, for example.
	It is therefore important that ways are found properly to scrutinise the money and resources available in Northern Ireland. In looking at them, we see that extra resources from the European Union are often placed in the voluntary sector, with the statutory sector receiving the other resources. Because of the temporary nature of the resources available from the European Union, there can be a sudden cliff and no resources are subsequently available. I hope that in the ensuing months and years, thought will be given to mainstreaming some of the important work that the voluntary sector is achieving in Northern Ireland, perhaps with temporary money.
	Those of us who have expressed an interest in Northern Ireland in this place over the years receive a mountain of literature from agencies in Northern Ireland. I shall highlight a couple. One is the review of public administration, where reference is made to local government, health, education and to other bodies that provide administration and services in Northern Ireland. That review is a huge operation, and it must be right. I am delighted that it is consultation. But it is consultation in the absence of a functioning Assembly in Northern Ireland.
	In the review document, there is reference to some, but not all, of the considerable number of quangos that function in Northern Ireland and to a reduction in the number of operating agencies in local government. I suggest to the Minister that perhaps it would be important to look at democratising that which is taking place in the quangos and whether some of that work could be done by local government. Bearing in mind the experiences that many of us have had in England with local government, we should be absolutely certain that any local government review will be right for the future. I worry about increasing the size of local government, and several ways forward are produced in the report, but it is important that we try to ensure that local government in Northern Ireland is the most approachable size.
	There is also a further document, A Shared Future, which states on its cover that it has been produced by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Of course, they are not in business. It is all good stuff, and it sets out the way in which people should behave. But that sort of behaviour will not be achieved unless there are people in Northern Ireland committed to it. Indeed, the "shared future" must be politically underpinned.
	Direct rule may be the least unacceptable political option for the moment, until the better solution of a democratically elected Assembly can pick up its rightful responsibilities. It cannot go on indefinitely, and I urge the Minister to consider carefully the well scripted and sensible solutions put forward by my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton on many occasions, which I look forward to him reiterating again. Northern Ireland's communities deserve no less.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and I also thank my noble friend Lord Maginnis of Drumglass for allowing me to change places with him on the speakers' list. I also join other noble Lords in wishing well the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on his appointment to activities in Northern Ireland. It has been pointed out that he is a straightforward speaker—and that is what we prefer in Northern Ireland.
	The issue to which I referred your Lordships' House in the address on the Queen's Speech, I must return to in this debate. I can think of no issue which has such far-reaching potential for undermining the democratic process than the continuing white collar terrorism of Sinn Fein/IRA in both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. I refer to the scandal of IRA money laundering and their sleepers and agents secreted among the population in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and here in Great Britain.
	The activities of Mr Philip Flynn, a friend and associate of Mr Bertie Ahern, demand further examination. This man played a role as chairman of the Bank of Scotland (Ireland), while at the heart of government in the Republic and was an adviser to Sinn Fein/IRA on business organisation, including finance.
	I acknowledge that since I spoke on this issue two weeks ago, an investigation started into the loan book of the Belfast branch of the Bank of Scotland. My only hope is that the Police Service of Northern Ireland fraud squad will get total access to all papers relating to money lending by that office. The response of the Irish Prime Minister, Mr Ahern, to this remains totally complacent. It appears that Mr Ahern had secret meetings recently with Sinn Fein/IRA. In the light of these revelations, apart altogether from the appropriateness of such contacts, many of us will wonder whether its purpose was to emphasise the requirements of constitutional politics or to receive further demands of a non-constitutional organisation.
	Any other Prime Minister who had knowingly allowed a senior member of a revolutionary movement, known to be associated with terrorists, into a position of massive influence, would by now have resigned. One thing is quite certain. This man, Mr Ahern, in the eyes of all Unionists, has not just compromised but totally forfeited any claim that he might have had to consider himself an honest broker. As for the Irish bank regulator, who sat on his hands and did nothing, he should do the decent thing and resign. And heads should roll at the Bank of Scotland. Aiding and abetting any form of money laundering, let alone that for terrorist use, is a particularly heinous crime in a civilised society.
	The information about the activity of Mr Flynn and his associates is beginning to flow—and it is frightening. Did Flynn have access to 10 Downing Street or any of the confidential correspondence exchanged between the two Prime Ministers? Did Flynn use his influence over Mr Ahern to gain access to documents relating to recent political talks? Did Flynn advise the Irish Prime Minister about Sinn Fein/IRA?
	One other issue in which Flynn is believed to be involved was the IRA demand that the killers of police detective Jerry McCabe should be released. In my view this outraged many law-abiding citizens in the Republic. I today ask Mr Ahern to do something any decent politician would have undertaken months ago. That is to apologise to Jerry McCabe's widow, Ann, for the way she and her family have been treated and humiliated, just to satisfy the IRA.
	The web of blackmail and terror continues to unravel. One of Flynn's principal allies, a Frank Connolly, is well known to the police in many countries, as is Flynn's house guest, Brian Keenan—a member of the IRA ruling council. Keenan set the deal up for the IRA to provide training to the FARC terrorists in Columbia with another top IRA leader, Padraig Wilson. It was Padraig Wilson who accompanied Frank Connolly when they travelled to Columbia on false passports and were filmed arriving at Bogota airport.
	Mr Connolly is the brother of one of the infamous "Columbia three". That brother was the IRA's representative in Cuba and is now hiding somewhere in South America after jumping bail in Columbia. Frank is the chief executive of the Centre for Public Inquiry. Mr Philip Flynn was a founder and a board member of the self-styled Centre for Public Inquiry. Connolly, who was questioned by the police, will not discuss his visit to South America. That is strange for a CEO of a Centre for Public Inquiry. Perhaps the former High Court judge, Mr Fergus Flood, who also sits on the board of the CPI, would ask his chief executive what he was doing travelling on a false passport to South America with Padraig Wilson, a senior IRA terrorist.
	I noted this morning that BBC Radio Ulster, in its total naivety, interviewed Frank Connolly about police corruption in the Republic. It is a pity that such a person is given such credibility. It would have been better if the interviewer had asked him what he was doing in Columbia with false passports. All the information about Flynn and much, much more than I have outlined in this House, is known to the police and to the Irish Government. So why does Mr Ahern cover up for his friend Flynn?
	A senior adviser to Mr Blair outraged many when he was reported in the media as saying that he had no problem whatever if the whole island of Ireland became awash with gangster-style mafia, like Italy or Russia—as long as it did not get into England. But when you feed the tiger, at some stage the tiger will eat you. It seems to me that all of us, no matter what our politics are on the island of Ireland, are to be the sacrifice.
	At the expense of boring your Lordships' House, I am compelled to return to the issue of Waterways Ireland. Many investigative journalists are each day unearthing more and more scandals about this body. One of the official investigations into bullying found that the chief executive had bullied a senior member of staff. Yet the result of the report is that the chief executive is still in his job and the man he bullied has lost his. By whose standards is that justice?
	There are 20 further investigations still to be reported upon. It seems to many of us that there is a deliberate attempt to ignore or downgrade these complaints. Collectively, 20 senior managers wrote to the chief executive of Waterways Ireland in April 2004. Extracts from the letter are as follows:
	"We want to express our concerns about certain key issues which have a bearing on all of us, namely the state of management-employee relationships and certain management practices within the organisation . . . It is our view that there is an absence of effective management which is having a detrimental effect on the whole organisation . . . It is our considered view that these issues are increasingly resulting in failure of Waterways Ireland to deliver its function and remit".
	In April 2004, the group wrote to the sponsoring departments:
	"Whilst the birth of any new body is not without periods of pain and anxiety, it is with a real sense of sadness, deep anger and frustration that we are writing this letter . . . Instead of being a model of best practice in the public sector, Waterways Ireland is a dysfunctional organisation rife with internal conflict which is not realising its full potential . . . Over the last number of years we have repeatedly raised issues with the chief executive and his directors only for them to be dismissed or ignored . . . Most disturbingly, there have been instances of bullying and intimidation by senior management . . . We find the process put in train by the CE to investigate these matters completely unacceptable specifically in relation to issues of bullying and harassment . . . we have lost all confidence in our CE's ability to address them. The undersigned remain deeply committed to the success of Waterways Ireland . . . We trust that our appeal will receive your urgent attention".
	Very, very little has happened about these complaints and the frustration continues.
	Senior staff were recruited, and in some cases promoted, without open competition, which is a cornerstone of employment practice in Northern Ireland. Putting your friends into a job is cronyism and is not acceptable. The job in question was the director of communications and marketing. It is a job for which very many people, including me, would have been qualified. But we were never given the opportunity. I am saying clearly that this appointment and others were made through discrimination and must be undone.
	Recently, Deloitte and Touche carried out a risk assessment of Waterways Ireland and some of the key conclusions were: a lack of leadership at senior level in tackling key issues; a failure to ensure appropriate management arrangements; a financial resources failure to achieve value for money; a failure to deliver on projected objectives and targets; and risk of fraud. The same consultants also highlighted major health and safety risks that are frightening in the extreme. These issues must be addressed before someone is hurt or worse.
	The tourist trade in Fermanagh, which relies heavily on the lakes, is being damaged by the dysfunctional nature of Waterways Ireland. I would underline that problems in that organisation concern all political parties, not just Unionists. We did not sign up to cross-border bodies to create this type of organisation, which seems to be out of control.
	These issues will not go away and must be cleaned up. Only last month, the chief executive of the Sperrin Lakeland Trust had to resign after a similar report of dreadful risk assessment. Yet nearby in Waterways Ireland the chief executive cannot be touched. The entire management team is frustrated by the Irish Government's failure to take action. More and more people from all parts of the community are asking why.
	My Lords, the future of Northern Ireland must be one of total equality and respect for the law. Anything else and we are doomed.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is as much a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Laird, as it would have been to have followed the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass. Though the practice of your Lordships' House of congratulating the noble colleague who has secured the debate, not only on having chosen the subject of the day, but also on the manner in which he or she introduced it is a cross between a ritual and a minuet, it is a particular pleasure to congratulate my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth—which is a town that also gave the great monarch, Henry V, to the nation. My noble friend displays a continuing and constant interest in the affairs of the Province and demonstrates an encyclopaedic and contemporary knowledge that puts to shame some of us in your Lordships' House who spent some of our political life in Northern Ireland.
	It is also apposite that it is my noble friend who should be the initiator of the first debate on Northern Ireland in your Lordships' House since the publication of Mr Geoffrey Lewis's seminal book Carson: The Man Who Divided Ireland, which, of course, in a suitably Irish paradox, he never wished to do.
	As previous speakers have said, we are delighted to welcome to this debate the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is maintaining the tradition that the leadership core in your Lordships' House should take responsibility for the Province's affairs in our midst. Of course, the noble Lord has direct responsibility.
	As other noble Lords have done, I vicariously welcome the Secretary of State. He maintains the tradition of Welsh MPs, indeed, Welsh Secretaries of State, occupying Hillsborough Castle, although he possibly has less Celtic blood than his predecessor, Mr Paul Murphy, who was generous with his time and judgment in talking to some of us who are interested in developments in the province. Meanwhile, Mr Woodward, the Parliamentary Secretary, is given to long speeches, which will make him very welcome in Ulster.
	If I may allude to one other former Northern Ireland Minister who has received preferment, I am delighted that Mr Desmond Browne—with whom I served in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs in another place—has so rapidly reached the Cabinet, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which he richly deserved to do.
	When I was first interviewed comprehensively in the Province, nearly 16 years ago, the Press Association representative in Belfast put it to me that the security situation in the Province was a Mexican standoff. If one substitutes the political situation for the security one, one could say that nothing much has changed in the past 16 years.
	One can feel sympathy for the noble Lord, and indeed for the Secretary of State, who had little to do with the Belfast agreement, but the Government did then make their bed, in what a great Ulster historian called the "narrow ground", and they have had to lie on it ever since. The only counsel that I would give to the Secretary of State is that, unlike Matthew Parris, who grew up in southern Africa, he should not think of the Unionists in terms of the Boers or the Afrikaners. A disproportionate amount of Irish literature—prose, poetry and drama—and Irish art is the work of those who were or are Unionists. He would start from the wrong perspective if he were to make that error and perhaps reading Mr Lewis's book on Carson would be a good alternative start.
	As to the consequences and repercussions of the Belfast agreement, I shall not dwell on the terms on which the prisoners were released without a quid pro quo, or, indeed, a punt pro quo or, even more lyrically, a euro pro quo. That lacuna remains one of the great might-have-beens of history. But the milk has long since been spilt and has long since gone sour. It is now itself a matter of history. But the condition in the agreement about using best efforts to get the terrorists to lay down arms is still with us, as the IRA, seven years after the agreement, carries out its debate about whether to disband.
	It remains my impression that, at least on the Republican side, there was a concordat that Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness could get on with their politicking, provided that arms deals were not part of them. I am not saying that the concordat was necessarily written or stated. If it is true that within the Republican movement the "need to know" doctrine is "bottom up", rather than "top down"—which the arrangements relating to the Northern Bank robbery seem to imply—ignorance can be a plus. As my former American employer once said:
	"One of the strongest arguments for telling the truth, Peter, is that it is much easier to remember".
	Likewise, denial is easier if one has no knowledge to deny. Today's Mexican standoff in political terms is a consequence of that Byzantine policy. The letter of the agreement can be claimed to be intact, but the spirit is hopelessly fractured and it will take an age to pick up the pieces. As someone once said, the clock that strikes 13 not only contradicts itself but casts doubt on all previous statements.
	There are rumours that during the final negotiation of the agreement Mr Jeffrey Donaldson, whose Unionist position was perhaps the most hard line—perhaps a product of having been Enoch Powell's agent, and his transfer to the DUP perhaps being a subsequent corroboration—was detached from the main negotiating body to have a bilateral meeting with, I believe, Mr Seamus Mallon and that by the time he returned the Unionists had agreed to gentler terms and wording than when he had left them. If that was so, it had the same incalculable consequences as though a French sharp-shooter at Waterloo had brought down the horse of General von Ziethen, the Prussian staff officer attached to Wellington's staff, as he rode across the battlefield with the Duke's urgent request that Prinz von Blucher take over the position of the British left which had not fired a shot all day, so that the British left could reinforce the British centre against the last hurrah of the Imperial Guard.
	The same sense of the spirit of the agreement, belonging in Sinn Fein's eyes to a different document than that which others signed, emerges, as my noble friend Lady Park said, in the attitude of Sinn Fein towards what they call British justice, which has had malign consequences as regards their non-involvement in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. If Sinn Fein justice is a variant form, the case of the late Robert McCartney, both in his treatment before his death and in the experiences of his family since, is an ugly harbinger of what the so-called rule of law might become, not necessarily only north of the border.
	Ministers have a tough situation on their hands and it is particularly pertinent to wish them well. Whatever the Minister is able to tell us today will be welcome, but I would not wish him to feel any need to set out the Government's negotiating stance in public. However, I would welcome him saying whether the Government are still minded, as they were before the election, to believe that the reduction in security levels does not adversely affect the collection of intelligence.

Lord Alderdice: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for achieving this debate. Those in Northern Ireland are grateful to her for much more than that. She has had a continuing, informed and energetic interest in the affairs of our beloved Province, which all of us appreciate very much indeed. In Northern Ireland we are all very well aware how difficult it is for people to sustain a long-term interest in Northern Ireland because events there are not necessarily particularly encouraging, but she has done that and we deeply appreciate it.
	We are also very appreciative of the efforts of the previous Secretary of State, indeed of all previous Secretaries of State. This debate is graced by a number of them. Those who are here will recall that, after a decent period of time, it is almost traditional in Northern Ireland for there to be a call for the Secretary of State to go: calls of, "Brooke must go", "Mayhew must go", followed a long line of distinguished Secretaries of State and others. Those calls never had anything to do with the quality of the Secretary of State or the sterling work being achieved.
	As I say, that was almost a tradition, but it is notable that in the case of Mr Paul Murphy, that never applied. In some peculiar, perhaps Welsh, way he found a capacity to do his work with diligence, but he also maintained relationships with an exceedingly diverse and frequently disagreeable political populace. I want to commend him, vicariously, through his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I also welcome his successor Mr Peter Hain and the other new members of the Northern Ireland Office.
	Mention has also been made of the particular qualities of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, as he comes to the Northern Ireland Office. Not only do I welcome him, but I also emphasise what my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland has said: I believe that his forthright, no-nonsense approach is important. As we are considering the situation in Northern Ireland today, at times there may be a temptation to believe that the situation there never changes—one is reminded of Churchill's aphorism after the end of the First World War—but in truth some things have changed and very markedly.
	I suppose there are two elements to the process in Northern Ireland. There is a peace process and a political process. On the political process, things have changed quite dramatically. For a long time there was a notion that it would be possible to build up a broad centre of politics that could come together, act as a magnet and to some extent marginalise those who took a more extreme position.
	One of the dilemmas that faced all of us who were trying to negotiate the Belfast agreement was that if it were intended to incorporate everyone, even those on the extremes, inevitably the partisans would have a veto, as they would not sign up to anything over which they did not have a veto. But there was no sunset clause to that veto and, furthermore, there were institutions that embedded it. It was clear, at least to some of us, that if one insisted that within the Assembly and in much beyond it people had to identify themselves as Unionists or nationalists, and if votes and the whole approach were based on the notion of majorities within Unionism and majorities within nationalism, the inevitable dynamic would be towards polarisation.
	That is what has happened. It is no great surprise to those of us who have observed the situation. It was almost inevitably one of the potential downsides to the Belfast agreement. Our agreement was not alone in that; it has been the same in other places. Therefore, it has changed the situation because it would be much more difficult to persuade any observer now of the short-term possibilities of building up a strong centre ground which could marginalise more extreme views. Currently, that is not a short-term possibility.
	Therefore, as the noble Lord and his colleagues approach the prospects for the political process, that matter needs to be taken into consideration. There is no short, easy answer. Although I have little doubt that a preference on the part of those within Unionism and those within nationalism and republicanism would be for an agreed, devolved power-sharing government, one should not now underestimate the difficulties of achieving that. That grieves me greatly, given that I have given so much of my own time and energy to achieving that. The political situation has changed and, like other wider European political situations, perhaps a little reflection is merited in the present climate.
	There is also the peace process, which is a separate matter. While one may currently feel a little down about the early prospects for devolution, there is evidence that there has been an improvement in the security situation on the ground. It is clear that there is very little likelihood of a return to the ongoing terrorist campaigns that we experienced through the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. Of course, it is clear that CIRA, RIRA and others would like to be able to return to something of the kind, but there is also considerable evidence that the security forces have been blessed with considerable success.
	On the Provisional IRA, while it is clear that they retain the capacity to return to that kind of campaign, there is no evidence that they intend to return to it. To a considerable extent, while the capability remains, the intention, certainly in the short term, does not seem to be present. What has changed is that there has been a diversification into organised crime. That is a very serious matter. It leads one to ask, what is the political intent in the republican movement?
	If the political intent is what is claimed by the republican movement, we surely have a problem. I have heard no refuting of the traditional republican position that the Provisional IRA represents the lawful government and representation of the people of Ireland north and south. I have never heard that set to the side. I must therefore assume that it is still the position.
	Does the party seek power in Ireland, north and south? Manifestly it does. Does it seek to gain it only by democratic political means or with political means backed up by some element of paramilitary muscle? I do not see that denied either. That is a serious question not only for those of us who live in Northern Ireland but for those who live in Ireland as a whole.
	Does the republican movement ultimately intend to participate fully in democratic politics and observe all the standards that requires, but to maintain that position for the time being with some slimmed down but not disappeared military capability? Is the republican movement ready for the IRA to end all forms of illegal activity and engage wholeheartedly in democratic politics and in policing, which of course is part of governance? That is what we want to see. But let us recognise that we are not asking for anything more than we expect of any ordinary citizen. We are not asking for anything strange or unusual, we are simply asking for people to behave as we expect ordinary law-abiding citizens to behave. Is that really unreasonable?
	That is why I welcome the straight-speaking approach of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. For years we have known that it has been necessary and, I believe, appropriate to have a degree of breadth to our language, to be prepared to accept that some things that are said could have more than one interpretation on different parts of the community. I do not think that that is unreasonable. As a preacher's son I have heard many a preacher do it.
	But there comes a point when a degree of honesty and clarity is necessary. If the IRA's terrorist campaign is over, what is the political justification for the criminal activity of the IRA? On the loyalist side—and we must not forget this—there is now absolutely no political justification for the continuing criminal activity. The UVF, the UDA and other such organisations are now bereft of any political justification whatever, and none of them thinks in those terms any more.
	I hope, but I am yet to be convinced, that the UDA can make the kind of transition it publicly proclaimed it intends to make, with a degree of backing from the Government. I do not see the UVF as even having got that far. So that element of criminality is profoundly dug into parts of our community. Is it now any different on the republican side? I should be grateful if the clear-speaking noble Lord, Lord Rooker, can—and I understand that he is newly into his position—over time bring that skill, which it is, and courage, which it is, to a Northern Ireland community which on all sides wants that clarity, not only from him but from the republican movement and also from all those who have engaged in illegal criminal activity on the basis of a political platform in the past.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, whose services to Northern Ireland have been immense and which most recently have comprised serving as a member of the Independent Monitoring Commission. He has asked many pertinent questions of republican parties and paramilitaries, among others. There has been no shortage of questions. What have been absent, hitherto, are answers. I very much agree with what the noble Lord said about the urgent need for them.
	We all regard it as typical of the persistence and general wisdom of my noble friend Lady Park that so early in this Parliament she should have secured this debate. I congratulate her on that and, along with everybody else, thank her for it. I also, no less warmly, congratulate the Minister on his accession to this office, and I congratulate the people of Northern Ireland on it too, for the reasons that have been expressed.
	I add my thanks to the outgoing Secretary of State, who took prodigious pains to keep many of us in this House in the picture about what the Government were trying to do. I thought that he did his job admirably and I greatly regret that he was moved.
	Before I reach the substance of the debate, perhaps I may say a few words about Mr David Trimble. However history may judge his overall influence on the politics of Northern Ireland and, indeed, of Ireland—I believe that he will be rated very highly—I should like to pay tribute today to the courage with which he took the risks associated with his remarkable vision.
	The problems of Northern Ireland—one might say its afflictions—are seen to be so intractable and of such duration that among a great many people living outside the Province a kind of "concern fatigue" has very dangerously set in. That allows the problems of Northern Ireland to slip down and even slip off people's list of things to worry about. These have always been out of sight and increasingly they are out of mind. But, unfortunately, there are still plenty of things to worry about. If this kind of collective ennui were seen to affect the Government I think that the consequences would be very bad.
	To one of the principal causes, the IRA, but to loyalist paramilitaries as well, one may once more apply the notorious phrase, "They have not gone away, you know". For instance, as my noble friend Lady Park has reminded us, if you wish to help the police to investigate a paramilitary murder it is very probable that your life will be in danger. If you resist an exiling order that you should leave the Province within 24 hours, imposed upon you by a paramilitary organisation, your life will be in danger. If you seek to resist one of those criminal rackets in which the paramilitaries are increasingly engaged, again you will find your life at risk. All those things still go on, as we have been reminded.
	My noble friend referred us to the fifth report of the Independent Monitoring Commission. Its findings are set out in alarming detail. I refer to only one. It can be found at paragraph 2.11; that the IRA is recruiting and training new members in the use of guns and bombs, and gathering intelligence. Only nine months ago, 10,000 rounds of its ammunition were discovered by the police. It was ammunition intended for assault rifles and of a kind not previously known in Northern Ireland.
	The IRA has most certainly not gone away. When confronted with the earlier reports of the commission, through its political wing, Sinn Fein, it challenged the commission's powers and activities by way of a judicial review. It claimed that the commission was not independent and that its reports were ultra vires. The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland dismissed those claims. That did not deflect a senior Sinn Fein Member of the Assembly, Mr Alex Maskey, whom several of us remember well, from responding to that report by claiming that the commission was,
	"the tool of British securocrats, created and used to discriminate against Sinn Fein and its electorate".
	If that were true, we would find it rather surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, had retained his membership. I am slightly sorry that he restrained himself from commenting on that.
	A great many people were already deeply suspicious about where the leadership of Sinn Fein was really leading and what the influence of Sinn Fein's leaders on the IRA was really leading to. This sort of reaction to the commission can only strengthen those suspicions. That is before account is taken of the widely reported assertions of the Irish Minister of Justice, Mr McDowell, that when Gerry Adams appeals to the IRA he is only talking to himself and that as an IRA leader still he would get what he called "a shaving mirror response". I wonder what the Government make of that. I dwell on those matters not because I think that any one of them, by itself, is conclusive but because they establish that there are many serious things indeed to worry about in Northern Ireland.
	They confront the new Secretary of State for whom, like everyone else, I wish only the best of success. He was right to say, in the light of the last report, that it was now necessary for the IRA to make it absolutely crystal clear that it would go out of the business of paramilitary activity and criminality. He was right to say that; he could scarcely have said anything less. He must now show that he means it.
	Here, I have a criticism—not of him, but of the Prime Minister. I am sure that it is not Mr Hain's fault that, as the 14th Secretary of State since direct rule, he is the first to be required to look after Wales as well. I find it difficult to suppose that conditions in the Province and the current state of the peace process and political process justify the view that Northern Ireland no longer needs the undivided attention of the Secretary of State.
	I must confess that throughout my time, which lasted for five years, I always found it necessary to regard it as rather more than a full-time job—a marvellous job, certainly, but a fully demanding one. Two of the reasons were these: however long you stay there, there will always be an immense amount to learn; and, secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has reflected, each successive Secretary of State in Northern Ireland is the subject of profound and multifarious suspicions.
	I was certainly no exception. Those suspicions often conflicted with each other, but unless they are credibly reduced, at least, they undermine your ability to help—which, after all, is what you are paid for and are there for. So you must continuously show your commitment; you need to show that you eat, breathe and sleep Northern Ireland and that you do so because you like the place. Luckily, that called for no simulation on my part. I have no idea whether I was successful.
	In short, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, you need to get out and let the dog see the rabbit—and let it go on seeing it. That will be far more difficult, I fear, if you have to keep flying off to Cardiff. That will suggest to suspicious minds that Northern Ireland is now a diminished concern; confidence will suffer; and the paramilitaries alone will gain.
	All the same, it is important, where possible, to be positive about the future and there are factors that enable us to be so. The key to the help that any government can give to the people of Northern Ireland is to hold out credible hope that a better way of living can be had. It is a way of living that is self-governing, on fair terms and free from the scourge of violence or threatened violence. I think that people yearn for that, which is an important start. The Government must show a commitment to it that is resolute and undiscouraged.
	Devolved government has already worked and it can be made to work again, and better, if violence is verifiably forsworn. There is still a contest between democracy and the creed of violence. We cannot tell for how long we will have to fight it, but if the Government will only keep their nerve and commitment, we can be confident that the people of Northern Ireland will win.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to his Northern Ireland role. I wish him well, but I must caution him that he has an awesome task to perform. During the past seven or eight years, Northern Ireland has drifted into administrative chaos. In that respect, it is worse now than it was at the height of the Troubles.
	As always, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, for her consistent interest and for the opportunity that the debate provides. After 22 years in Parliament and after the many disappointments that I have had during that time, I must still express surprise that, whatever our shortcomings, we are still dismissed as second-class citizens.
	To illustrate that, let me begin with children—vulnerable children, children suffering from autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Yesterday, I received two Written Answers from the Minister, which tell me that,
	"Information on the number of children diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorders is not available",
	and that,
	"Information on the number of children referred for suspected autistic spectrum disorder assessment and the current waiting times for assessment are not collected centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost".—[Official Report, 8/6/05; cols. WA 90–91.]
	That is outrageous. My simple question is: if that is the case, how can my six year-old grandson and the hundreds of other children like him who are autistic be properly catered for? Without even basic information, how can the Government plan to finance their needs; adequately to progress their education; and to provide in a systematic way new, developing processes that may enable them to overcome their difficulties? A system, an administration or a government that have not addressed that problem indicate a scandalously negligent government. I look to the Minister to effect changes. In the light of the inadequate information available, I want an immediate meeting with the Minister responsible. Be assured, I will return to the issue in your Lordships' House.
	I move to children in care and pose the proposition that we may as well not have a Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY). I have tried to work with the department and NICCY for the past three years to try to get them to address the extent to which the 1997 children's Act has swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction from that which pertained previously. I have raised the issue of 13 year-old girls in care being plied with drugs, getting into debt and then being sexually exploited—prostituted—by their suppliers. I have had the validity of my allegations admitted by NICCY, but the best that can be done by the authorities is that contraceptive measures are provided, often without the parents' knowledge.
	Political correctness is such that carers in the system are being given an impossible task. The rights of any foolish or vulnerable child have priority over her social, educational and moral welfare. I have found NICCY to be a useless operation, a waste of resources. On my experience, I would not give it house room. In this case, there is no point in me asking the Minister to arrange a meeting with anyone else. I have lost count of the meetings that I have had, and it is time that we had an urgent review of legislation that does nothing short of facilitating very young people who may, rebelliously or innocently, choose to throw themselves on the scrapheap of society. I would, however, be happy to meet the Minister, if he so wished.
	Another gigantic scandal is the £8 million to £9 million per annum operation that elevates the Police Ombudsman to a status that virtually outranks the Director of Public Prosecutions. While our hospitals and rural schools structures are under severe financial scrutiny, the Police Ombudsman has been allowed a free hand to establish a veritable kingdom of 128 staff, costing between £1,000 and £1,200 per annum for every police officer.
	That operation might usefully be contrasted with the efficiency of the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, who couples that job with being the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints. Notwithstanding his responsibility to scrutinise 10 government departments, 26 councils, every government agency, including the Housing Executive and social security, and the cross-border bodies, he makes do with 24 staff and a budget of around £1.2 million. Where is the justification for that?
	Let the Minister look at some of the parliamentary Answers that I have received over the past year; let him look at the prosecutions pursued by Mrs O'Loan over periods of up to four years for a single case, only for them to be thrown out when every perverse machination has failed; let him consider the officers and their families kept in mental torture throughout that time; let him read the case studies that I have sent to the Attorney-General and which I will willingly share with him. Let him tell me if that is justice.
	I have sought to discover, through a series of Written Questions, what correspondence passed between Mrs O'Loan and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor relating to how a resident magistrate acted in the course of dismissing a case brought against police by Mrs O'Loan's office. Initially I was told that there was no such letter, but gradually, as I persisted, I learnt differently. Eventually, on 18 April this year, I received a response from the Police Ombudsman's office explaining why the letter was sent to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and, as I understood it, offering me a chance to see the correspondence. It stated:
	"The Police Ombudsman has no difficulty in giving you access to the correspondence appropriately redacted, if you feel that would alleviate your concerns and I will be happy to do this if you so indicate".
	As such correspondence was, I considered, unwarranted interference in and abuse of the judicial process, I did not avail of the offer. Instead I again asked for the correspondence to be placed in the Library and received the following reply:
	"The Police Ombudsman has advised that under Section 63 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 . . . she does not believe it appropriate to disclose copies of the correspondence between her office and the Lord Chancellor".—[Official Report, 8/6/05; col. WA 90.]
	Your Lordships' House has a right to know, not just Ken Maginnis. It would be unacceptable to me—and, I believe, to your Lordships' House—if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had to measure up to some caveat imposed by Mrs O'Loan, as it appears the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland must. It is not good enough. Justice must be seen to be done.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has a mountain to climb. I wish him well. He will have the co-operation of my colleagues and me. With the noble Lord we look forward to a new openness that can replace the prevailing evasion and equivocation.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I join all those noble Lords who have heaped praise on the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his new post. I will have more to say on that later. I thank my noble friend Lady Park for bringing Northern Ireland back into the House again.
	I regret the loss of Paul Murphy as Secretary of State. I am not sure why he was sacked. It is worth asking because we all thought that he was doing an extremely good job. I just wonder whether it was that Sinn Fein/IRA did not share our view. I am sure that he was not sacked simply to make room for a shuffle to accommodate the demotion of Mr Hoon, although we can well understand that need. We can only hope that some of the kite-flying suggesting that Mr Murphy may be a future chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee is well justified. He would do a good job there, as he did in Northern Ireland. I regret that he has gone from Northern Ireland.
	Since we last debated these matters we have had the general election. I am not sure that the results in Northern Ireland gave too much encouragement to those who believe that the way to electoral success is to occupy the middle ground.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will tell us of the progress of the Saville inquiry. It has taken too long, it has cost too much, and its report is long overdue. I understand that the Government justify the establishment of that inquiry by the need, as they see it, to establish the truth about that day and to bring those responsible to justice. However, civilians were killed not only on that day. A number of my friends have been murdered, Tony Berry and Ian Gow among them. Two attempts have been made by the IRA to murder a Prime Minister—both, thank God, unsuccessful. Now that we know, and it is officially acknowledged, that the distinction between the IRA and Sinn Fein is just about as wide as the distinction between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, we need a little more inquiry into those events. If, as the Taoiseach has said, the leaders of Sinn Fein are the leading members of the army council of the IRA, we should inquire further into those matters.
	It is impossible to believe that murders such as those that I have mentioned and the attempts to murder two Prime Ministers could have been planned, authorised and managed other than at the level of the army council of the IRA. If that is true, and if what the Taoiseach has told us is true, Adams and McGuinness are almost certainly involved in those crimes. Maybe I am wrong; perhaps the Brighton bombing and the mortar attacks on No. 10 were maverick affairs like the murder of Mr McCartney, and the only role of the IRA leadership has been to ensure that the perpetrators should not be brought to justice, except the most junior members, who could perhaps be sacrificed. But I doubt that.
	We need to know the truth. There can be no reconciliation until the truth is known. Were Adams and McGuinness the godfathers of a terrorist group throughout the years in which they have posed as leaders of a political party? We should know; the Government should know—I think that the Government do know, but they are in denial. We should set up a judicial inquiry to uncover the truth, most particularly of the two attempts to murder Prime Ministers. Another advantage would be that, if we uncovered the truth of those crimes and some others, although some of them are outside time limitations, it might be possible for the Government to seek to relieve Sinn Fein/IRA of some of its riches and criminal gains to help to cover the costs of the criminal acts that it has committed.
	It is unacceptable to me that the people of Northern Ireland should be denied that knowledge and the security and justice that are enjoyed by their fellow citizens of this kingdom on the mainland. Ministers accepting gangsters as colleagues and licensing armed rackets and armed racketeers as the price of an absence of overt terrorism on the streets is not acceptable. I hope that it will not be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
	I remain pessimistic. Peace without justice is not a stable peace. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, spoke for many of us in his welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. We all have a high regard for him. If the policy towards matters in Northern Ireland remains unchanged, either the noble Lord will lose his reputation or, sooner or later, he will lose his job.

Lord Lyell: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Tebbit. I will go back 33 years to when I sat under the clock on the other side of your Lordships' House. I was a comparatively young Back-Bencher and I would rise among what I called the Titans of your Lordships' House who had enormous expertise. Guess what has happened today. Once again, we have former Secretaries of State, my noble friend who has just spoken and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. But the philosophy and the reason why I stand here today is exactly the same as 33 years ago.
	I was a young Scot, an accountant, with not much experience of your Lordships' House. As I took my first steps in your Lordships' House in the summer of 1968 there were enormous disturbances, including student revolts and so forth, in Europe. Noble Lords may remember that later in that summer, there was a student march from Queen's University, Belfast. It was then that I began to read about the young lady, Miss Emily Beattie, who did or did not get a council house in Caledon, County Tyrone. That perceived injustice, or not, and the reasons why she did or did not receive that house led not to civil disobedience but to mild marches, which were perhaps in vogue at that time.
	In 1968 and 1969 events continued. I still have copies of the Cameron report, the Widgery report and, later, the Scarman report, which are not covered in dust because I read them from time to time. It seemed that all of the occupants of your Lordships' judicial Benches were involved. Indeed, there is now a lengthy inquiry going on. I was fascinated. My first eight speeches in your Lordships' House were under the tutelage of the late Lord O'Neill of the Maine. While I was a citizen of the United Kingdom, I would see Northern Ireland.
	My consciousness started from there. Your Lordships await the arrival of my friend, Sir Brian Mawhinney. In the summer of 1989, when the excellent newspaper, the Belfast News Letter, in an excoriating attack on my noble friend Lord King of Bridgewater and others with ministerial ken, said that they were a bunch of rascals—that is putting it fairly mildly—with the notable exception of the Minister of Agriculture—referring to myself—who had made a conscious effort, and so forth. Sir Brian Mawhinney said, "Well, perhaps most of the time he is unconscious", but I thought that was a bit vicious.
	I had the honour and privilege to serve five and a half years in the number one industry of Northern Ireland. I am very pleased that it is one of the main preoccupations across the water of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Twenty-one years ago, I had the enormous honour and good luck to serve, in the tenth year of what I call my whip-hood, in the Department of Trade and Industry under—surprise, surprise—my noble friend Lord Tebbit.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, what a pleasure it was.

Lord Lyell: My Lords, flattery will get my noble friend everywhere, but I have not finished yet. It was the training and advice that I received from him that enabled me to go to Northern Ireland in April 1984. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who referred to Secretaries of State about whom placards said "King must go" or "Mayhew must go". Perhaps I beat the record: it was within 10 days of my arrival in Northern Ireland that newspapers said, "Lyell must go, and quickly". Indeed, one of the only times that my physical safety was thought to be at risk was when I went to the annual general meeting of the Ulster Farmers Union and had to declare that milk quotas were to be savagely imposed. How my career survived, I do not know. But it was with the enormous support of many of your Lordships and many people in Northern Ireland that I survived.
	In those days, the department was known as the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. My understanding is that it is now the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. With that in mind, I ask your Lordships' House and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to shorten your focus. We have had a fascinating debate, thanks to my noble friend Lady Park, on very serious, deep-rooted and quite often frightening and chilling aspects of political life in part of the United Kingdom. We have a very close and special relationship with the Republic of Ireland.
	I want to shorten the focus and look at one aspect of Northern Ireland—indeed, for the past 33 years I have studied it. That aspect is "what is good about Northern Ireland?". I hope that that will be the base for political discussions and developments, which many of us will not live to see develop. But let us start from that base today. What is done today and what the Minister and his colleague, the Secretary of State, will say and do will, I hope, have a beneficial effect in 15 to 20 years time.
	In my career, an all-Ireland aspect was paramount. As regards agriculture and animal health, Ireland is one island. I used to have agricultural meetings with my colleagues from the Republic with many organisations in the north and, quite often, in Dublin. We used to go to Dublin frequently for meetings on, of all things, not fishing or forestry, but horseracing.
	I went to the Irish St Leger from London. One of my fellow passengers on the aeroplane was the then Duchess of Norfolk who had a racehorse entered for the Irish St Leger called Moon Madness. When I arrived in Dublin, the security officials who were looking after my safety wondered whether that was my codename. I said, "No. That was given to many politicians in Northern Ireland as well as to me". Alas, my tip that Moon Madness would do well was as successful as many of my other thoughts on agriculture. Moon Madness was not entirely successful.
	We have heard chilling tales today of death, injury and violence. But I ask your Lordships to look at one more newspaper headline, which will be known to my noble friend Lord Glentoran and to the noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Maginnis. Today there is a horrific headline about the deaths of two young men in County Down. They were not blown up by a bomb; they were not shot, or killed in violence. No, they died in a particularly unpleasant accident in a slurry tank, in which they both drowned. I might well have visited there. That is part of the darker side of the wonderful side of Northern Ireland that I have seen and been involved with.
	There have been bizarre scenes, as far as the political aspects have been concerned. In 1984, I seem to remember, although luckily I was not present, the honourable Member for North Antrim went down to Dublin. He must have spent the night there, because he bearded the Taoiseach at his front door at eight o'clock in the morning, and apparently there was a fairly lively discussion. I do not think the Taoiseach invited him in for morning coffee or prayers. I also lived through the 1985 Anglo-Irish agreement, and the great campaign of "Ulster says no". I was an observer for the Good Friday agreement of 1998.
	I have listened carefully to the thread running through many of your Lordships' speeches, and I go along with it. I hope the Minister will reiterate that every agreement, even if not earth-shattering, is a step forward. You can never do without a good lawyer, such as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, or a good accountant, to tie up every last dot and comma. That is one of the aspects that is still giving concern to many of us this side of the water, let alone to those in Northern Ireland and the Republic. There is much more involved, as my noble friend Lord Tebbit and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, have pointed out.
	I conclude by reminding your Lordships of a small island just off the north coast of Antrim called Rathlin, which my noble friend Lord Glentoran may know. It is reputed to be there that Robert the Bruce, on the run from Edward I, who at that time ruled the roost over most of Scotland, watched the great mythical spider that fell repeatedly, but tried and tried again. Gradually, after goodness knows how many attempts, the spider won. Every one of us involved in Northern Ireland politics—and I have been lucky enough to be involved in the bright side of Northern Ireland—should remember that spider. It might take five weeks, five months, five years, or a bit longer than that, but what the Minister and his colleagues do today will bear fruit in due course. I wish him well.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is one of the traditions of this House to thank the Member of the House who has introduced a Motion thus giving us a chance to debate it. I do so gladly. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, has given us the opportunity to debate this important subject. I admire, and have admired over the years I have known her, her commitment to the subject, her dedication, and the tenacity with which she has always pursued it. Having said that, I do not always agree with her, and there are things that she said today with which I cannot agree, because I felt she was being negative and looking back rather than forward. She will understand, though; we have debated these issues before.
	I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rooker on his new post. I am sure he will rise to the responsibilities with his usual skill, aplomb and charm. I also pay tribute to the new Secretary of State, Peter Hain, and wish him well in his new responsibilities.
	I will say a few words about David Trimble. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said earlier, history will judge David Trimble rather more kindly and generously than he has been by some members of his own party, and indeed by the voters of the constituency that rejected him. He has made an important contribution, and I hope that in the fullness of time that will be more fully recognised.
	I also join in the tributes to Paul Murphy. He has played an enormous role, both as Minister of State, when I was a junior Minister after the 1997 election, and more recently as Secretary of State. He has been consistently open to discussion. We have had many meetings with him as Members of this House. He has been low-key, modest and unassuming. He has earned the respect of all the parties in Northern Ireland, and that is not easy to do. It can be done on the day a new Minister arrives, but to have achieved that after several years in the post is not at all easy, and he deserves an enormous tribute for the way he has done that, and for his achievements.
	I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Park, rhetorically, perhaps, had there been no ceasefires and no peace process, how many people who are alive today would have been murdered by terrorists in Northern Ireland? Quite a large number, I suggest. Even if we feel that the process has not delivered everything it should have done—and I am the first to agree with that criticism—there are still people alive and uninjured today who would have been maimed by the murderers in Northern Ireland. If for no other reason, we should be grateful that there have been ceasefires, and that there has been a peace process.
	Of course, the criminality that continues today, even if it is at a lower level than 10 or 15 years ago, is unacceptable. The murder of Robert McCartney was appalling. So too was the Northern Bank robbery, which was also a violent crime: one of the staff members nearly died when she was abducted and then left. She might have died from hypothermia. Other crimes have been committed on both sides by loyalist and republican paramilitaries. These must cease.
	Let us look forward a bit. As recently as last April, just before the general election, Sinn Fein issued an important statement that suggested enormous progress. Today we are still waiting for the IRA response to that statement. I hope it will not be long in coming. It may be inadequate, but, if it is in keeping with the original statement, maybe there will be a breakthrough and progress will have been made. That is why I am more of an optimist than one or two of your Lordships who have spoken in today's debate.
	If, as I hope, there is a clear and positive move by the IRA when they respond, it is also important that the other parties, such as the DUP, the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP, the Alliance and so on, will also respond to that. If we get an initiative that suggests there is a breakthrough, all parties should see it in that light. Only in that way can we get the assembly, the executive and the institutions restored. We got fairly close to that some months ago, and I trust that all parties will show a willingness to accept the Belfast agreement in full if there is a breakthrough, which is possible.
	Sinn Fein also knows that it cannot long delay taking a full part in policing in Northern Ireland. The pressure on it to do so has come from all sides. The police reforms in Northern Ireland have been spectacular. The people have the right to demand that all their elected politicians play a full part in giving effect to the Patten reforms. After all, Catholic representation in the police today has doubled since that report, and it is worth recording that no plastic bullets have been fired since 2002—again, a sign that things are improving, but they have a long way to go.
	It must be in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland for the economy to go on improving. The economy has made enormous strides: unemployment is lower, production is up, and there is a much better atmosphere for business and industry generally. However, for that to continue, it is important that we return to a local assembly so that local politicians can make the decisions. I say that with all due respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench.
	While it may be more difficult for some Members of this House, I believe that it is important that all the parties in Northern Ireland should accept that on a small island, the economic links between Northern Ireland and the Republic can only enhance the well-being of all in both areas. That requires a change in attitude.
	We need also to see a change in attitude within the business community of Northern Ireland. For too long, large sectors of the population, and in part the business community, have been reluctant to get involved in the political process, for understandable reasons. But closer links and a deeper understanding of the relationship between business and politics are important, and I should like to see the business community show, as it were, more respect for politicians and vice versa. Although it sounds as though I am lecturing, I want to make a one-word plea for vision. All in Northern Ireland, in particular all those who make decisions, need to show vision, imagination and a willingness to take risks.
	I recall visiting Dublin soon after the 1997 election, when I was struck by the contrast between the self-confidence in the Republic and the relative lack of it in Northern Ireland. That is starting to change, and I am delighted to see the beginnings of more self-confidence in Northern Ireland.
	Let me declare an interest as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Integrated Education in Northern Ireland, about which I want to say a brief word. It is not the answer to all the problems, but it would help. So long as the majority of young people are educated separately from those of the other faith, the barriers between the communities are bound to remain in place. If young people never meet those of another faith, they may succumb to the temptation to demonise them. Surely that does not make for a healthy society. I hope that the Government will increase their commitment to integrated education over the coming years. Recently I opened an integrated school in Cookstown and I was delighted at the dedication and enthusiasm of the parents, governors and head teacher.
	I finish by referring to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Laird. He knows that I am going to speak because I warned him in advance. I read the noble Lord's speech of 24 May and I have listened to him today. I am sorry that he feels it necessary to criticise in the way he did the Taoiseach, the Prime Minister of a friendly country. I believe that he has gone too far in doing that and I do not think that it is in the best traditions of this House for him to have done so. Bertie Ahern has played an enormously positive role in helping us in the peace process in Northern Ireland. He and his Ministers have been resolute in their condemnation of IRA criminality, and that should be both recognised and respected. I am not sure that allegations of this sort are particularly helpful in what has otherwise been a very positive and constructive debate.

Lord Steinberg: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Park for initiating this interesting debate. Those of us who come originally from Northern Ireland are always delighted to be able to present our views, whether they are acceptable or not. For that I am grateful to my noble friend. I am pretty much a new boy and have not yet had the chance to have a conversation with the new Minister, but from what previous speakers have said, I am looking forward to a good and continuing relationship. I and the people of Northern Ireland like someone who is straight talking. If that is the Minister's greatest attribute, he will do well. I hope that the Minister will stay in his post for the full term of this Government because continuity is one of the things that is so important in Northern Ireland.
	After the excitement of the general election and the "No" votes in France and Holland, we come back to mundane matters and problems which need solving. So here we are again, debating Northern Ireland, something which has gone on for many years. When somebody is ill or sick, it is important that a doctor is continually in attendance to minister to the patient and to understand the history and nature of the illness and how it might improve, along with the treatment required. To have had five doctors in eight years does not really give the patient a full chance of recovery. To have had five Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland in eight years is, in my opinion, a recipe for continued ill-health—and so it has proved. I blame the Government and the Prime Minister for not allowing a doctor, or Secretary of State, to look after the patient for an extended period of time. That is why I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that I hope he will stay for the life of this Parliament, as I do the Secretary of State.
	The European constitution is dead and the Belfast agreement is very ill. All the people of Northern Ireland want an agreement, but we must almost start again. Here I pay real tribute to David Trimble for all his efforts. Many have considered what place he will have in history, but to my mind he took courageous risks and I hope that it is not long before we see him in this House.
	If one reads the report of the Independent Monitoring Commission published on 24 May, one quickly realises that while the patient might appear superficially to be better, under the surface all the old problems still exist. The IRA is regrouping, continuing to train and carrying on with its spying wherever possible. So-called loyalist paramilitaries are doing the same. All the fringe groups are similarly continuing with their illegal activities. How can things get better?
	To give noble Lords a perspective, and for those who have not read the IMC report, I give a couple of quotations. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew quoted from paragraph 2.11, which goes on to say:
	"We believe that since the end of August 2004 it was responsible for some 5 shootings and 6 assaults. PIRA remains heavily engaged in organised crime, including for example the smuggling of fuel and tobacco. Recent events have shown PIRA's sophisticated use of money laundering".
	And we should not forget that the loyalists are equally criticised at paragraph 2.21:
	"The UVF undertook a number of attacks over Christmas and New Year . . . It continues to recruit members. Several of the loyalist shootings and assaults over the period . . . can be attributed to the UVF and the [Red Hand Commandos]. The UVF is also engaged in organised crime".
	So it is not a simple situation.
	I am going to say something positive, which I hope will happen. Several things need to take place, but we must all agree that the objective of a power-sharing assembly is the right way forward and it has my support, full and unequivocal. IRA/Sinn Fein, which has 25 per cent of the vote, requires representation. But before that representation is granted, several things need to happen: there must be a verifiable, open and complete decommissioning of all arms; there must be a statement that the war is over; and all punishment beatings and all forms of criminality must cease. Of course the loyalist paramilitaries must do likewise and in the same way.
	What is the way forward? The people of Northern Ireland want a regional assembly, and I believe that the rest of the United Kingdom wants the same thing. As an interim measure, and only that, the assembly should re-sit but without IRA/Sinn Fein in any executive positions. An executive should be set up of the Democratic Unionist Party, the Ulster Unionist Party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party and the Alliance Party until such time as it becomes obvious that IRA/Sinn Fein is prepared to play the game according to the rules.
	In the mean time, the power of the local county councils should be strengthened to enable them to give advice to the Assembly so that the Assembly does not remain moribund. The Assembly could then debate the recommendations from the county councils and forward them to the Secretary of State. He could then consider and implement some of the recommendations put forward. It might be slightly convoluted but at least it would keep matters moving.
	I said earlier that I hope that Peter Hain, in his new position as Secretary of State, will remain in that office for the entire period of this Parliament. If he and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, remain in post, they will understand the position a lot better than many of their previous colleagues, who were shunted in and out to suit politics rather than to deal with the problems of Northern Ireland. If the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, thinks I am being critical, I should tell him that I am straight talking, as I hope he will be.
	I have often wondered what sense there was in holding an Assembly election when it was called, as it was so obvious that the centre would be squeezed and the parties on the right and left would achieve much greater prominence. The prospects of establishing an executive to include the DUP and IRA/Sinn Fein are negligible at the moment but may well improve if IRA/Sinn Fein sets into motion the three actions we believe it should take. The sooner we can put together a proper, devolved Assembly representing all strains of opinion in Northern Ireland, the better it will be—not only for the people of Northern Ireland but for Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
	I hope my comments commend themselves to the House. I am grateful for the opportunity to put them forward today.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for initiating the debate. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, there is a possibility that concern fatigue may set in on the issue of Northern Ireland. Having a debate on Northern Ireland so early on in this Parliament should allay those fears to some extent. It has been a very good debate so far, and I applaud the contributions that have been made.
	I, too, welcome the members of the new NIO team and endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Shutt said about them. I also pay tribute to David Trimble, who has moved a long way from being a vanguard unionist to becoming something of a world statesman. We have all been privileged to watch that odyssey.
	We would all agree that my noble friend Lord Alderdice provided a brilliant analysis of the current situation. As many noble Lords have said, politically the omens are not good. The resounding victory of the DUP at the general election has made it the only effective voice of unionism. The UUP may renew itself some day, but that is not likely in the foreseeable future. The DUP is now dominant in the unionist community. It is comparatively more dominant than Sinn Fein is among the nationalist community because the SDLP did surprisingly well and maintained its parliamentary representation. The stark fact remains that the extreme polarisation seen in the outcome of the last election to the Assembly is now even more entrenched. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, we have a Mexican stand-off.
	After his undoubted electoral success, Mr Ian Paisley is, I am afraid, sounding even more bellicose and obdurate. He has been making noises, extravagant even by his standards. He has stated that he believes the Belfast agreement should be torn up and a new start made. Among other demands, he wants a new election to the Assembly, presumably so that he can complete his rout of the UUP. I trust that the Government will have no truck with those and any similar demands from Mr Paisley.
	If an attempt is to be made to get all parties to think seriously again about devolution, the first action—I have said this before—is to give them three months' notice that if there has not been some movement towards progress the salaries of all MLAs will cease. I have long argued for that and, although he was originally opposed to the idea, the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, was won over to my argument. There can be no justification for the taxpayer forking out more than £500,000 a month to the MLAs, who cannot agree between themselves to get on with their main task of running Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister and the former Secretary of State, Mr Paul Murphy, are on record as coming round to that view. It is now time to act on it. Money—or rather, the threatened lack of it—will help concentrate minds. That is particularly true in Northern Ireland and is one of the many bonds that the two communities share.
	As I have said on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House, MLAs of all parties could at least agree on acting as a scrutiny body for the considerable amount of Northern Ireland legislation that comes to Westminster as a result of direct rule. There are a number of arguments in favour of that. First, it could be a confidence-building measure. During the relatively brief spell of devolution, the parties in the Assembly worked well together in scrutinising and agreeing on legislation, as my noble friend Lord Alderdice would testify. It concerned major items, including the most important of all, setting the budget. There is no reason why that could not happen again.
	Secondly, it would allow for an authentic democratic regional voice to be heard about the merits or otherwise of proposed policy measures. Thirdly—related to the last point—Westminster is not equipped to deal adequately with the volume of Northern Ireland legislation that comes before it. For example, for the past two years we have dealt with the budget in Grand Committee in about two hours. It was a cursory glance at a subject of crucial importance. That means that there is no democratic accountability, and direct rule, to all intents and purposes, is no more than civil servants taking all the major decisions—and the minor ones, for that matter. That is an appalling and unacceptable situation.
	The problem is further aggravated by the fact that most legislation coming before us is in the form of secondary legislation. You do not have to take the extreme position of the late Lord Chief Justice Hewart to appreciate that that is a very undemocratic way of doing things. That is perhaps why the Government try to extend the practice to other areas beyond Northern Ireland. By convention, Orders in Council and statutory instruments cannot be amended—they can only be accepted or opposed—and Opposition Whips in this House discourage their Front-Benchers from dividing the House on such issues. As I have done before, I give notice that there will be an issue on an Order in Council, where, as a matter of principle, we will seek to have it negatived.
	In that connection, I ask the Minister to say what new provisions will be introduced for better scrutiny at Westminster of Northern Ireland business. Before the election, the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council, in acknowledging the democratic deficit, stated that the Government were examining how it could be overcome. She reiterated that last Monday. Will the Government consult widely with those of us with an interest in Northern Ireland about how the situation could be remedied, and when is that likely to happen?
	The fourth argument in favour of using MLAs as a pre-legislative scrutiny body is that it would be a good enough reason for continuing to pay them their salary. It would thereby continue in a formal way the main element of what passes for a political class in Northern Ireland.
	It has been argued that to convene the Assembly as a pre-legislative scrutiny body would require primary legislation. That is pedantic Civil Service talk, bereft of vision. I believe that if—I accept that it is a big "if"—the political parties could see such a step as a pragmatic way to move forward, everyone at Westminster would be happy to pass any necessary primary legislation with the utmost expedition. The necessary imagination and political will is required to make that very modest movement to help unfreeze the present impasse.
	Of course, what I have been suggesting is how to begin the slow incremental process of resolving the current gridlock. A much swifter resumption of the peace process would come from a dramatic move by the Provisional IRA, as many noble Lords have said, to the effect that it would no longer have recourse to armed conflict but would adhere exclusively to peaceful and democratic methods in pursuit of its objectives. That is now, more than ever, a prerequisite condition because of the changed disposition of the unionist representation.
	That fact of life must also be coupled with Sinn Fein's performance. Its popular vote, which hitherto seemed to be climbing inexorably, was down perceptibly at the election, while its failure to make more ground in Derry in both parliamentary and municipal terms must give Sinn Fein pause for rumination. That falling short of its expectations may well be echoed in elections in the Irish Republic, which cannot be far off. Sinn Fein has been presuming too much and overplaying its political hand. Were Mr Gerry Adams and his colleagues able to persuade the Provos to give up their paramilitary predilections, it would yield strong benefits for Sinn Fein, the peace process and, most important, the people of Ireland, north and south. As the economists say, it would be a Pareto optimal solution in which everyone gains.
	Finally, will the Minister consider, as the previous Secretary of State said immediately after the Northern Bank raid, including Northern Ireland under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, so that we can know what the accounts of the political parties are? As the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said, the money laundering carried out by Sinn Fein is considerable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, it is the richest party in this country. According to my data, it is the richest party in Europe. We must know the sources of its income.
	If there were some dramatic move, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, hopes there will be—we all do, though some of us do not share his optimism; I admire him for it because optimism is difficult much of the time in Northern Ireland—and paramilitary activity such as punishment beatings and enforced exiling stopped, with republicans participating in the arrangements covering the PSNI, the prospects for a quick return to devolution would brighten considerably. Unless the Provisional IRA can deliver that package to Sinn Fein, the other political parties and the two Governments, direct rule will remain as the very unsatisfactory form of governance for Northern Ireland. Paramilitary activity and the crimes associated with it, including robberies, drug dealing, extortion and the like, will continue unchecked and may well increase in scale. There is some evidence that that is already happening, as my noble friend Lord Alderdice said. No one, save for the most twisted terrorist minds, would countenance a return to increased paramilitary activity, killings and bombings.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I welcome this first opportunity since the general election to discuss and take stock of the current situation in Northern Ireland. I am very indebted to my noble friend Lady Park for initiating this debate and for making her case—our case—in her typically forensic way. She always speaks with great authority and insight on Northern Ireland and has been a great supporter to me and the Northern Ireland Front Bench on this side of the House ever since I have been involved, and I am most grateful.
	I have already, on a previous occasion, welcomed the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to his new post as Minister of State for Northern Ireland in your Lordships' House, but it gives me pleasure to welcome him again at our first debate. I also wish to associate myself with all the compliments that have been paid to the past Secretary of State, Paul Murphy, who was a great friend of all of us here. I particularly associate myself with the words of my noble friend Lord Tebbit—it was a tragedy that Paul Murphy left. My noble friend Lord Steinberg made the strong point that contrary to practice in the Conservative days, when Secretaries of State stayed many years, nowadays they seem to fly in and fly out. I am afraid that that is probably because of the heavy-handed interference from Downing Street.
	It is with no disrespect to the current Leader of this House or her predecessor that I say that having a full-time member of the Northern Ireland Office in your Lordships' House is greatly appreciated. I believe that it will make a very sound contribution to our affairs in the next few years.
	Our party supports the Government in their efforts to secure a comprehensive and lasting political settlement, based on the central principles of the Belfast agreement that will lead to the restoration of devolved government. However, we have no intention of giving the Government a blank cheque. When we disagree with their approach or actions, we will not hesitate to say so. This has been our approach over the past two Parliaments and we have remained friends and co-operatives throughout. I hope that this will continue.
	In that context, I must say that Her Majesty's Government have to bear a great deal of responsibility for the current impasse in Northern Ireland, in particular for the demise of the brave and courageous advocate for the centre, David Trimble, who was a good friend to many of us and still is. I am the first to acknowledge that the Belfast agreement was a great achievement, not least for the Prime Minister. Yet since 1998, so many of the Government's actions have virtually guaranteed that it would never be fulfilled or properly implemented.
	We have seen too many side deals and flawed negotiations, all of which have given the impression that the Belfast agreement was simply a vehicle for endless concessions to Irish republicanism. Instead of taking action against republicans, for example, through the introduction of effective sanctions into the process, Mr Blair indulged them. In the words of one leading commentator in Belfast this week:
	"Instead of dealing with them, Tony toadied to them".
	That was said in the Belfast Telegraph by Lindy McDowell on 8 June 2005—pretty recent.
	The result is as clear as it was predictable. Sinn Fein has prospered as a result of its intransigence. Meanwhile the wider Unionist community has lost confidence first in the agreement and now, it seems, in the political process itself.
	Unionism very narrowly bought the agreement in the referendum in 1998, largely on the basis of two speeches and handwritten pledges that the Prime Minister had made in Northern Ireland. The basic deal he set out was that in return for including republicans in government, there would be an effective end to the IRA. Weapons would be given up, under the agreement, by May 2000, and all aspects of paramilitary activity—the shootings, the beatings, the extortion and the organised mafia-style crime—would cease. They have not.
	In the words of the agreement, Sinn Fein would make the transition,
	"to exclusively democratic and peaceful means".
	As the events of the past few months have made clear, reinforced by the most recent reports of the Independent Monitoring Commission, this has simply not happened. Despite three acts of decommissioning in seven years, the IRA remains, in the words of the IMC—chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in your Lordships' House—in its report of 25 May,
	"determined to maintain its effectiveness, both in terms of organised crime, control in republican areas, and the potential for terrorism. We have no present evidence that it intends to resume a campaign of violence despite the collapse of the political talks in December 2004, but its capacity remains should that become the intention".
	Those points have been made by other noble Lords.
	Put bluntly, the report painted a picture of an organisation that is simply up to its neck in a whole range of criminal activities. Added to this was the Chief Constable's statement at the end of April that the IRA was still engaged in targeting and recruiting.
	The latest IMC report and the words of the Chief Constable show just how far Sinn Fein has to go before it can be regarded as a normal political party, playing by the same democratic rules as everyone else. Sinn Fein and the IRA remain inextricably linked as two sides of the same republican coin.
	We agree with the Defence Minister in the Irish Republic when he said in the Sunday Independent on 20 February 2005:
	"We are no longer prepared to accept the farce that Sinn Fein and the IRA are separate. They are indivisible".
	The Justice Minister, who speaks with commendable frankness and clarity on these matters, is in no doubt that Sinn Fein and the IRA are, in his words, "directed by the same leadership". When asked whom he meant, he said:
	"We're talking about Martin McGuinness, Gerry Adams, Martin Ferris and others".
	That was quoted in the Irish Times on 21 February 2005. I sincerely hope in future that Ministers in our own Government will speak with equal clarity when it comes to dealing with the republican movement. We are looking to none other than the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to lead his Government in that direction.
	The speech that Gerry Adams made in Belfast at the beginning of the general election campaign has been widely interpreted as a challenge to the IRA to accept the alternative to so-called armed struggle and embrace exclusively democratic politics. While his speech can be interpreted as encouraging, in our view trust can be built only on actions, not just words. We are told that the IRA is still considering its response, but let me be clear about what we shall require on this side of the House before we can consider supporting re-establishment of an executive in Northern Ireland that includes Sinn Fein Ministers.
	The IRA's response needs to be decisive and clearly understood. Incidentally, I believe that our thoughts are very much in line with Unionists, but particularly with the DUP, which is regrettably not yet represented in your Lordships' House. The response must herald the effective end of the IRA as a paramilitary force, and an end to all forms of criminal behaviour. It must commit the IRA transparently and rapidly to complete the decommissioning of all illegal weapons and must signal that republicans move quickly to a position in which they support the police and the criminal justice system.
	In the light of Sinn Fein/IRA's behaviour, it now appears that the suspension of the Stormont government may be prolonged. The time has come to ask whether we can any longer go on governing a significant part of our kingdom by unamendable statutory instrument. I submit that we cannot—certainly in the case of any significant change in the law or proposed legislation that is controversial or opposed by a number of elected representatives in Northern Ireland. For example, I believe it is utterly wrong to introduce tuition fees in Northern Ireland, or to abolish any of our outstanding schools by statutory instrument.
	The arrangements put in place by the late Lord Williams of Mostyn, which allowed for debate in Grand Committee prior to a decision on the Floor, were a helpful and appreciated short-term expedient. But we are no longer in the short term. It must surely be the case that if the people of Northern Ireland are denied devolved institutions because the Government effectively give Sinn Fein/IRA a veto on the existence of those institutions, they must be entitled to the same protection of the full scrutiny of proposed legislation by their national parliament, as any person in England would expect. We cannot treat Northern Ireland as a second-class state, to be ruled by ministerial decree.
	So we must warn the Government that we shall expect significant changes in the law of Northern Ireland to be made by primary legislation until such time as Stormont is revived, and we shall reserve the right to vote against far-reaching statutory instruments whose content is opposed by a large number of people in Northern Ireland. In the absence of full devolution, we suggest that there should be an interim assembly that can question direct rule Ministers, scrutinise draft legislation, publish reports and give the people a greater say in what is going on. We currently have a situation in which the Government are intent on destroying our education system in Northern Ireland by abolishing selection.
	There are other issues that ought not to wait for a restoration of devolved government. For example, the Northern Ireland Policing Board, intended to be the central instrument of democratic accountability, currently reflects the party balance after the 1998 Assembly elections rather than the one that exists today. When does the Minister expect the board to be reconstituted to take account of that, and to begin appointing the new district policing partnerships, now that the local government elections are out of the way for another four years? We also believe that the reorganisation of public administration in Northern Ireland and the reduction in the number of local authorities ought to be moved forward as a high priority.
	I end by wishing the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, good luck, good fortune and success.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I begin by saying that I am grateful for the kind words that have been extended to the new ministerial team, and in particular for the universal praise to Paul Murphy for his work. On behalf of the team, I am extremely grateful for the recognition of the efforts that he put in.
	I promise to use my new-found diplomatic skills that I have learnt in this House in the past four years, which have toned down considerably from my previous incarnation in the other place. But I take on board what was said—and as an aside to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for whom I have enormous respect, I can say that I do not have an ego, but that respect is priceless.
	Before I come to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, who initiated the debate, I turn to a specific issue which I was unaware of previously. It relates to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, made about the accident. On behalf of the whole House, I extend sincere and deep sympathy to the families of James Wilson and Kenny Blair, who tragically died in an industrial accident on Tuesday involving slurry storage bags. A Health and Safety Executive inquiry is going on, as is an inquiry from the manufacturers of those bags. It is right that I should start with that matter and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for raising the issue.
	This has been a stimulating and excellent debate, typical of the quality of debates in this place, to which people bring experience of day-to-day activities and professionalism. This is what is expected in Northern Ireland debates. During the past four years, I have sat in on a couple of debates; I remember sitting in on one debate to which the former Leader of the House, Lord Williams of Mostyn, responded.
	I am delighted to respond to this debate, initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. I do not believe that I am speaking out of school in saying that once, as a result of a ride in the back of a taxi, I learnt that the name "Monmouth" is not quite as one noble Lord said in terms of a Welsh connection. But I shall not go beyond that—and I shall try to cover as many of the points that she raised as I can.
	The political situation in Northern Ireland is difficult—there is no question about that. But our position and the issues to be resolved are clear; I do not believe that there is any doubt about that. I was very taken by the short phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice—"clarity on crime". It is only a matter of a few words, but they are absolutely clear and cannot be misunderstood. I am pleased to have the opportunity to set out the position, from the Government's point of view.
	The British and Irish Governments remain committed to the ultimate goal of a fully inclusive power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland. That is what the people want. They do not want direct rule—I fully accept that—and I come with that in advance to the people of Northern Ireland, on my visits there so far. I realise that we are operating second best. Devolution will enable Northern Ireland again to take local decisions at local level; that is where they should be taken. To get to that position, we have to see the paramilitary groups make the final transition away from criminality. The political path is the only way forward—and if anyone has any doubts about that, they must shed them. It is the only way in which we can go forward. All paramilitary activity and criminality must stop, and everybody must know that it has stopped, and of course we need Unionist participation in an inclusive government.
	We know the scale and scope of the criminal activities, which continue to blight the process. I pay tribute to the Independent Monitoring Commission, of which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is a distinguished commissioner, for the reports that it produces and its contribution to bringing peace and stability in Northern Ireland. The last report was very important. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, highlighted paragraph 2.11, whose few sentences in some ways say it all.
	The Government and law enforcement are not standing by waiting for criminality to disappear. Firm action is being taken, and excellent results are being achieved against organised crime through the efforts of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Organised Crime Task Force and the Assets Recovery Agency. I shall give a few examples.
	Efforts continue to clamp down on fuel laundering. On 16 May, in a joint operation, two fuel laundering plants in South Armagh were dismantled. It is estimated that the potential output of both plants was 3 million litres with a potential annual revenue loss of £1.5 million.
	Successes against the drugs trade continue. On 7 March a couple from Manchester were jailed for 18 months in Newry Crown Court for attempting to smuggle £220,000-worth of cannabis into Northern Ireland. Also in March, Ecstasy with a street value of three-quarters of a million pounds was seized by the Police Service of Northern Ireland on 23 March in Craigavon in a search operation. One man was arrested. On 11 April the Police Service of Northern Ireland seized one kilogram of cocaine in Londonderry.
	The focus on armed robbery also continues. A criminal gang was convicted of armed robbery charges at Antrim Crown Court on 6 May relating to an attempted robbery in January 2003. The gang leader was jailed for nine years and the remaining five gang members for six years each.
	The results against volume crime are also to be congratulated. Crime is at its lowest for six years. There has been an overall drop in recorded crime of almost 8 per cent in the past year when comparing the financial years 2004–05 and 2003–04.
	The Police Service of Northern Ireland crime figures for 2003–04 show that domestic burglary had decreased by 12 per cent and that vehicle crime had decreased by 17 per cent. That should, of course, be welcomed but we are not complacent.
	The peace prize is, indeed, significant in many different ways. Troop levels are currently at their lowest when compared with the height of the troubles, and significantly less than at the time of the first IRA ceasefire. The figure was 30,000 in 1972, 17,000 in 1994 and is currently 10,500.
	Security-related deaths, while always unacceptable, are in single figures. There were 470 such deaths in 1972, 55 in 1998 and four in 2004. That is four too many, but the contrast is startling.
	The economic position has been transformed. There has been steady growth for more than a decade. The Northern Ireland economy expanded by 6 per cent over the year to 2003; considerably above the UK average rate of 5 per cent. Economic commentators forecast that Northern Ireland economic growth rates equalled the UK in 2004 and will exceed the UK growth rate in 2005.
	The Northern Ireland labour market has performed well. At 687,110, the number of employee jobs in December 2004 was the highest figure on record, while unemployment remains at historic lows and is currently equal to the UK rate of 4.7 per cent. I accept that those figures hide variations but those are the overall figures for Northern Ireland.
	Therefore, Northern Ireland has a strong economy and crime is down. The situation is better than it was in the past, but it could be better still, and it has to be much better to enable the people of Northern Ireland to live the same kind of life as the rest of the people of the United Kingdom. It is possible to rebuild situations and to rebuild the trust and confidence necessary to support a deal—that is crucial.
	Gerry Adams' 6 April statement calling on the IRA to embrace the political route has been mentioned by several noble Lords. The IRA response is awaited. It knows what response is required. There is no equivocation about that. We seemed close to a political deal in December last year. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said recently that if paramilitary activity and criminality cease, he hopes it should be possible to pick up the December position and move on. We are not going back; we have to move forward. That remains our focus and that is where we are putting our efforts. Through meetings with the parties, we continue to explore ways of achieving fully inclusive power-sharing. There is no apparent consensus for other models. Other models are seductive but there is no apparent consensus for them. We will continue to make every effort to move the process forward. Both Governments will do their utmost to achieve the ultimate goal of power-sharing. However, we must see this matched by an end to paramilitary activity.
	The present situation is unsatisfactory. Like other Members of this House, I am a democrat. The process on which I am now engaged as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office is almost distasteful when legislation is brought forward and cannot be amended. People feel as if they cannot make their point because it is not possible for amendments to be debated.
	Seductive suggestions are made regarding the work of the Members of the Assembly. On the one hand, we must ensure that the people of Northern Ireland do not suffer during this interregnum through having no progress made on legislation. On the other hand, we must not have a situation whereby no decisions are taken locally and Ministers in London take all the tough decisions so that everyone unites against us. That is not a situation that is appropriate for the long term. It is too seductive to fall into that trap. I am not worried about taking tough decisions; I and my colleagues will do that. However, that is a second-best situation; we have made that clear. We do not want to go down that seductive route.
	I make no commitment regarding changing legislation through Orders in Council, but the position is unsatisfactory. We hope that it is a temporary, short-term situation. I do not want to be despondent about the matter. I have no dates to put forward but this is not a long-term situation. It is not a process that can be sustained in the long term. I am talking about a period of some two-and-a-half years and one has to define when the short term becomes the medium term. I have no doubt that this issue will be debated further.
	There is no way in which I can cover all the points that have been made in the nine minutes which I have left to speak. I shall send a compendium letter to noble Lords to cover the substantive points that have been made. However, I shall refer to each of the speeches that have been made if I can. I have already covered some of the issues in my opening remarks.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, and other noble Lords referred to finance and political donations. Last year the Government made a commitment to move to greater transparency in political donation arrangements in Northern Ireland. These new arrangements will take into account Ireland's special role in the political life of Northern Ireland as set out in the Belfast agreement to allow donations from Irish citizens while allowing for greater transparency. Therefore, there are moves in that respect. That is important.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that the Government will, of course, continue to engage with all the parties in Northern Ireland. There must be a proper scrutiny of public expenditure. The noble Lord referred, as, indeed, did other noble Lords, to stronger local government with fewer but more powerful councils to be the bedrock of the new system. I have discovered that to be the reform of public administration, which I have been trying to get my head round. During the past couple of years an enormous amount of work has been done on that through the consultation. The final consultation is currently proceeding. It started in March and will finish in September. Ministerial decisions will be taken at the turn of the year: I cannot be certain whether that will occur in December or January. Everyone knows the options. The figure of 26 is impossible to operate. The figure will be either five, 11 or 15. I have made the point that it is hardly worth moving from 26 to 15. Councils will have more powers. I refer to the 100 plus quangos. That is important. Let us not democratise the quangos. We should ensure that their functions are carried out by elected local authorities, but not too many of them. There must be good governance with as much coterminosity as possible. The options are set out in the paper.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, that I have answered many questions—I dare say that I shall answer many more—on the waterways and other issues. The noble Lord raised issues that are not matters for the United Kingdom Government because they relate to banking legislation and regulation in the Republic of Ireland. In so far as I am able to answer his questions, I shall certainly do so.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred to the key question of security. We do not think that the security normalisation has gone too far. It is based on the current assessment of the threat. If the assessment changes, the security situation will change. It is a threat-based process. We are satisfied that the Secretary of State will be advised by the Chief Constable and the general commanding officer. As I say, it is a threat-based process and we are confident that we are on top of it. We are not losing out on intelligence simply because of a move to normalisation.
	I have in many ways already responded to the very important speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. The point that he made about clarity and criminality is crucial. I agreed very much with the thrust of his speech. I and other Ministers will do everything we can to learn from the commission in a positive way. Valuable lessons can be learnt from that.
	In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, of course I will meet with him to discuss the issues relating to the children's commissioner and the unsatisfactory parliamentary Answers that I have been giving him recently. The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People was established only in 2004, so it is a fairly new organisation. It is making good progress, but I am happy to meet to discuss that at the convenience of the noble Lord, either in London or in Northern Ireland.
	I referred already to a more personal point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. This is not a cop-out, but the point that he made about the Saville inquiry is an MoD, not a Northern Ireland Office issue. Nevertheless, I will ensure that the noble Lord receives an update on the Saville inquiry regarding the wholly legitimate points that he has raised.
	I am not knocking the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Steinberg, because they are seductive and they are practical and they come from his own experience. There are not enough people coming forward with practical answers and solutions. Plenty of people explain the problem; sometimes the answers are so seductive that one must be careful of the unintended consequences. I repeat that our goal remains the restoration of an inclusive, power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland. All other routes would be, not a cop-out, but second best—there is no question about that. We do not want second-best governance arrangements for Northern Ireland.
	Ministers want to be accountable, but as a Westminster Minister my first accountability to the Government is to this House. The first point of accountability of the other four Ministers is the House of Commons. That is the consequence; that is what direct rule is about. It is not about accountability to institutions in Northern Ireland. Local people should be accountable to institutions in Northern Ireland, making local decisions, having been elected to do so. That is what it is about; that is the way in which the system should work. We are a second-best, interim arrangement. The Secretary of State has set out the clear objectives regarding the end of paramilitary activity and criminality. We are always happy to look at the range of ideas that have been suggested to us.
	In some ways, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, made a helpful speech. I fully accept that changes may come as a point of principle from the Opposition Benches, if there is not a move to do something that is quite unusual, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, said. I am not inviting them to do that; far from it. I would have to go to the bosses and say, "Sorry, I have failed". But they have given due warning. I cannot be drawn too much on the issues relating to the individuals about whom they have both spoken, because it would be wrong to do so from the Dispatch Box. As regards the democratic deficit, I fully understand the steps that they may take. I have made the position clear regarding the speech that was made on 5 or 6 April. We await a response; everyone understands the response that is required. There cannot be any equivocation on that. It is a means of taking things forward.
	The rebuilding and cementing of trust is crucial; without it there will be no progress. That is clear. There have been enormous changes with the peace process and the political process. I listened to young people in Belfast last Friday afternoon explaining the work that they had done across the communities through the European peace funding processes. To hear young people talking about working with and meeting members of the other community for the first time in their lives at the ages they gave was quite humbling, but it is also progress. Massive progress is going on there, both in a return to as near normality as possible and with the economy running successfully. We need to do a lot more to get private sector investment into Northern Ireland to keep the jobs flowing. There is no question that there is far too much dependence on the public sector.
	I will go through all the points of substance with my advisers. I have not touched on every one and I apologise, but my time is up. I conclude by thanking all noble Lords very much for their welcome to the new team. We hope to take the process forward in a positive way.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I should like to thank everyone who spoke so splendidly in this debate. It has been extremely interesting and very wide-ranging. There will be a lot of discussion afterwards, notably between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We are happy opponents sometimes.
	I also pay tribute to the excellent Secretary of State who we have lost. I wrote to him at once and told him how much I admired him and what respect I felt for what he had achieved. I say again on the Floor of the House that he was an excellent Secretary of State, and we are sad to lose him. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Museums

Viscount Eccles: rose to call attention to the value of museums; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I look forward to this debate on the value of museums. My interests in museums are, first, the Bowes Museum in County Durham, of which I am a trustee and chairman; secondly, the historic theatre museum of the Georgian Theatre Royal, Richmond, in North Yorkshire, of which I am a trustee. I also have an interest in two national institutions that hold collections, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and the British Library.
	I am prompted to the title of this debate by a DCMS paper published in January; Understanding the Future: Museums and 21st Century Life: The Value of Museums. This Value paper calls for discussion and debate. Additionally, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council—MLA—has issued a new accreditation standard that is intended to reinforce the existing museum registration scheme. I also refer to a 2004 MORI survey and to the Goodison review—Securing the Best for Museums: Private Giving and Government Support—presented to the Government in January 2004, to which as far as I know no formal response has been made. There are estimated to be 2,500 national, local authority and private museums, of which some two-thirds are registered, their defining characteristic being that they hold collections that are open to the public. There are many other institutions and houses, both public and private, which hold collections that are open to the public.
	Museums pursue two purposes that are arguably common to all. First, to hold collections that are open to the public for their enjoyment and education. The description "enjoyment and education" was used in trust deeds in the 19th century and much later in the National Heritage Act 1983. It is an admirable description of the basic relationship between the public and museums. The second purpose is to hand on collections in no worse, and if possible a better, condition.
	In commenting on the first purpose I draw attention to a worrying trend. While "enjoyment" was still in vogue in 1983, it is now in danger of disappearing. The DCMS invites us to recognise that "enjoyment" is not what it was. Its content has altered—apparently. We do not find among the 13 questions in Value one that simply asks, "As over one-third of the population enjoy their visits to museums, how do we ensure that many more share in that enjoyment?".
	Indeed, the department's language has become heavier, more qualified and controlling. Museums must be good for us. Nothing is as simple as looking at a picture and saying, "Wow! I like that". If art does not stir our emotions as well as our intellect, something is missing. As to the second purpose, much lies behind the description, "No worse and, if possible, better". Increasing knowledge is putting more and more demands on museum conservators. With an increasing demand for professional skill, we need the skilled people, the facilities for them, and the money with which to pay them.
	There is another highly significant fact about collections. In the very great majority, collections have been given not bought. As Goodison points out, that needs to be borne in mind when considering government's relationship with museums. Sir Nicholas has the experience to know, for he was chairman of the National Art Collections Fund, and without the NACF collections would be the poorer. Government's role in the formation of collections has been small and is likely to remain so.
	Although the National Heritage Memorial Fund has been of help in making acquisitions, its role as the body responsible for the Heritage Lottery Fund is of much greater significance. Grants made by HLF have been of great assistance to many museums. HLF moneys are public money coming from the lottery players, the great majority of whom value museums, as MORI tells us in the 2004 survey, even if it is a lesser but still substantial number who visit. The review's concern is a perceived falling away in HLF's duty towards heritage, and a much increased concentration on social objectives.
	HLF receives directions from the Secretary of State, which could erode independence—much emphasised in Parliament—and leave HLF in a position in which it does not make its own determination of full compliance with Acts of Parliament. Will the Minister consider whether DCMS directions have the perceived effects and whether, in so directing HLF, the Government are satisfied that they are acting in accordance with the will of Parliament?
	I turn to income and expenditure. Museums are funded by a mixture of money. First, there is public money—money paid by the public who visit, typically admission charges in most museums. Then there is income from cafes, shops and events. A third source of income is private grants and donations, from trusts, friends' organisations, sponsors, individual benefactors and donors.
	The role of public money can be exaggerated. I offer two funding examples from experience. The Bowes depends for well over half its income on private money. Renaissance in the Regions, a most welcome addition, contributes a further eighth, and Durham County Council contributes a quarter. The second example is the theatre museum that forms part of the Georgian Theatre Royal. Volunteers staff the museum, which receives almost no public money. Many small museums are in the same position. It does not seem likely that that pattern will change, except at the margins. We need to keep it in mind during any sophistication of the DCMS/MLA regime.
	I shall now deal with governance. Following the National Heritage Act 1983, most national museums are incorporated as trusts under statute. The Bowes Museum Trust is modelled on the 1983 Act. Goodison found that that structure was appropriate and, in his eighth recommendation, asked that MLA make available a summary of the means by which trusts were set up, their agreements for continued local authority or other public funding, and their experience as independent entities. Goodison argued that independent trusts could recruit members to museum boards with a wide range of management and fundraising skills, as well as knowledge of collections. He also saw independent trust status as releasing energy and enthusiasm. Has Goodison's eighth recommendation been accepted, or will it be? If so, when will it be implemented?
	I shall comment on good governance. Governing bodies clearly need to understand their accountability under both charity and company law and accounting standards. They need to understand the strengths of their collections because the public is the No. 1 stakeholder, and boards need to know how their professional staff will market their collections to bring in visitors. That is a different issue from accessibility, most notably from access for the disabled, which always needs its own detailed attention. Accessibility will be in museums' business plans, as will marketing and income generation. Bringing those strands together, a board's central judgments will be at what level of activity the museum will be sustainable, and whether the board is confident that it will hand on the museum and its collections in a better state than that in which it found them.
	There is time for two other matters today. The first is social inclusion. MORI found that only a very small percentage of respondents cited exclusion. Many more, in a ratio of 25:1, cited lack of time or lack of interest. That presents museums with an opportunity in competition with all the other attractive choices open to the public. Inclusion is very much in their interests, for the more people who visit the better. Given that MORI also found that four out of five people supported having a local museum, the market has growth potential.
	Enjoyment and education remain the key to that growth. If visitors leave with a smile having learnt something, the word gets round. The young are of great assistance, whether in school parties or family groups. They not only enjoy themselves and learn, but lighten the atmosphere and do much to make our grander Victorian buildings more friendly. Other assets help, such as a good cafe and an interesting shop. After 90 minutes in a museum, anybody needs a strong cup of tea. To me, the defining business characteristic of a successful museum—learning from private houses open to the public—is increasing numbers of visitors and increasing self-generated funds.
	I return to The Value of Museums and its 13 questions. They are mostly about process. One question asks what role government should play. In it and other documents, there is talk of a national strategy, of national methods of measurement, and for museums to achieve coherence and coherent advocacy for all. Does it make sense to include the National Gallery and the Grace Darling Museum in Northumberland in a national strategy common to all? It is always the wish of the official mind to tidy up—to say with a sigh of relief, "Now we have only one body that speaks for museums"—and publish pest control best practice forgetting that a front-line professional has just found a better way of dealing with the carpet beetle in her textile collection.
	How then can government help while giving up their controlling instinct—their wish, suppressed I suppose, to centralise? By far the most help to collections comes from tax breaks. The present tax regime is helpful. Goodison recommended further assistance, which is another reason why the review deserves attention. As to all else, whether it be links to further and higher education, a strong research culture or being responsive to open communities, Value is pushing at an open door. Perhaps the Government will recognise that, if they will the ends but do not want to provide all the means, they need to pause and think deeply about priorities and sustainability.
	Even if Renaissance in the Regions is rolled out for the whole country, may the Bowes's most useful but modest 12.5 per cent of total income be remembered? Will the Government also remember that, for donors, benefactors and volunteers, process is not that important but that trust in forward plans is crucial?
	I am looking for the Minister to tell the House that the Government are not going down the prescriptive, centralising route, but rather will adopt a light-handed, enabling approach to museum strategy and its implementation. Will he also arrange to bring back "enjoyment" alongside the education? I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Viscount and to congratulate him on securing this debate and for giving such an excellent speech in describing in relatively few words the profound effect for good that museums have on our society. Indeed, they contribute so much and in so many different ways, that it is not possible to cover all of the ground in a single speech this afternoon.
	I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will forgive me if I concentrate mainly on two museums that I know particularly well—the National Railway Museum in York and its newly opened branch at Shildon in south-west Durham known as Locomotion. Many of the examples that I shall quote about those museums are representative of the excellent work going on across the museum world. In doing so, I declare an unpaid interest, as chairman of the Railway Heritage Committee.
	I plan to cover four main areas: education, social regeneration, heritage preservation, and sustainability. I shall start with education. The traditional educational benefits of museums are well known, but few people realise how comprehensively museum education now links into the national educational agenda at all levels, from nursery to postgraduate work. For example, in York over the past three years, the education programme has included working in partnership with the Sure Start initiative, York's Learning City early education programme, the Learning and Skills Council and York Family Learning.
	In 2004 the National Railway Museum opened the Yorkshire Rail Academy, a new educational institution for rail-related studies for the rail industry and for students in the 16–19 education bracket—and the first rail centre of vocational excellence in Britain. This work is in addition to the well-established Institute of Railway Studies and Transport History, which offers undergraduate and postgraduate teaching in the history of transport.
	Current projects at York include Creative Minds, which aims to promote science, maths and technology in schools and the Initial Teacher Training project, a research project to investigate the possibilities for museums, libraries and archives to have trainee teachers spending some of their placements at MLAs. Speaking of the MLAs, I commend their council's Renaissance project, which seeks to raise standards at over 40 regional museums, encouraging good practice, reaching new users, particularly among groups that have not traditionally visited museums—40 per cent of new users came from priority audiences in the scheme's first year—and improving and unlocking collections. If I had more time, I should have liked to say more about their good work.
	I turn now to social regeneration. Perhaps the best example of that is the opening of Locomotion, at Shildon in September last year. It represents the first ever joint management partnership between a national museum and a local authority. It was mainly funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, the European Regional Development Fund and the regional development agency, One North East.
	What I believe attracted these funding bodies was the prospect that Locomotion would not only appeal to a huge range of visitors, but that it would also add to the north-east's appeal as a tourist destination. Thus, the region's economy would benefit and there would be greater awareness of the north-east's heritage and history. Since its opening, the new museum has welcomed over 130,000 visitors, has won two national awards and has been short listed for four more.
	Against that background, the partnership set out to create a new museum with a real sense of community, as well as national and international status. It tapped into a rich local history through oral history recording and worked with schools and adult community arts projects. A community archive project, called Time Tracks, used special computer software at selected public venues to engage local people by recording and sharing personal reminiscence through scanned photographs and documents.
	What I like about Locomotion—and this is true of so many new and modernised museums these days—is how it appeals to all members of the family. There are loads of interactive displays, which are both fun and inspirational. The days of dusty old displays in sealed cabinets with large "don't touch" signs are, happily, over.
	I do not much care for the word "experience", as applied to museum days out—it seems to be applied to almost every visit anywhere—but it does describe well what parents and children can enjoy at Shildon in terms of special family events, a railway-themed children's playground, picnic areas, shops and a café. As Locomotion is part of the National Railway Museum, admission to it is free. The removal of national museum and gallery admission charges has widened access to a staggering degree. In the last year that the NRM had a full charging policy, 1998–99, 434,566 people visited the museum. Last year—the year up to March this year—the number was 885,366. That is more than twice as many as six years previously. One can imagine all multiplier benefits for the local economy that came from that increase in visitors in terms of shops, cafés, restaurants, and hotels in the region. I hope that my noble friend will be able to confirm that there is no possibility that the Government will abandon the free admissions policy.
	Access is part of the third area that I wish to cover, along with heritage. In relation to that, there is a particular project for which I seek my noble friend's support. He will recall that on 9 March, during the later stages of the Railways Bill in the last Parliament, I moved an amendment which sought to require the Secretary of State to come to an agreement with the trustees of the Science Museum to ensure the provision of a place of deposit for records generated within the railway industry.
	The amendment was necessary, because while the national archives at Kew house a record of Britain's railways from their inception to the mid-1990s, the records of the industry since railway privatisation have had no place of deposit because they are not public records. I said in that debate that the Railway Heritage Committee strongly supported the setting up of a railway industry national archive and wanted to see it based at the NRM in York. The NRM is keen to oblige and is ready to provide the space necessary as part of a broader project that greatly enhances public access for its existing archive and library collections.
	I acknowledge with thanks the support of the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave of North Hill, from whom we shall have the pleasure of hearing later in this debate. He wrote a most helpful letter, which I put on record in Committee on that Bill.
	The National Railway Museum is currently seeking funding for a project known as Search Engine to improve the storage of and access to the museum's extensive library, archive and image collections. Funding has already been secured from the Higher Education Funding Council, DCMS and internal fundraising, and the final element of the cost is being requested from the Heritage Lottery Fund to provide the appropriate improvements to public access. Currently, there is a funding gap of some £1.5 million for the development of the repository. I hope that we may obtain from my noble friend more encouragement than he was able to provide on 9 March.
	Finally, I shall briefly mention two aspects of railway museum life that your Lordships may find surprising. The first is the Africa initiative. The NRM has helped establish the first railway museum in Sierra Leone, which is that country's second national museum, by giving museum training to young volunteers from Freetown. That is proving to be of huge benefit to a country which is only just recovering from civil war—and is an example of the outreach approach that our museums can offer.
	Secondly, there is a commitment to sustainable development. I am pleased that the noble Viscount referred to that, too. One of the guiding principles at the new Locomotion museum has been environmental sustainability. The museum is built on a former brownfield site and is designed to have a reduced impact on the environment through a host of innovative sustainable features such as storage of rainwater for use in locomotive boilers, a wind turbine to provide electricity that pumps water from the underground store, many recycled materials such as rail sleepers and tracks, on-site transport by a green fuel bus, and—I cannot resist this one—provision of a special habitat to encourage the endangered Dingy Skipper butterfly.
	I hope that I have succeeded in demonstrating not only the intrinsic value of our museums, but also the fact that museums such as the National Railway Museum and its parent organisation, the National Museums of Science and Industry, succeed brilliantly in spanning the worlds of arts and science, particularly in terms of government interests such as the DTI science and innovation strategy through to regeneration, sustainable transport and overseas initiatives.
	It is a record of which they, and we as a nation, can feel justly proud. I hope that makes us all the more determined to ensure that the resources remain available to them to do in future what they already do so well today.

Lord Addington: My Lords, when I saw the topic of this debate and decided to put my name down to speak to it, I was inspired by something that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, mentioned: memories of enjoying museums. In my earliest years in my home city of Norwich, people went to the Castle Museum. How positive that had been was brought home to me a few years ago when, having returned to live in Norwich, I gave a dinner party. The guests were mainly ageing bumped and banged rugby players and their wives and the conversation was mainly "Do you remember when we almost won that trophy?" stories. But we found ourselves talking about how, as children, we had enjoyed going to the local museum.
	It was an institution that people—children—could go to, enjoy and get something out of. Everyone had a favourite exhibit—perhaps the now terribly politically incorrect collection of stuffed animals or the small boy's dream, the large, heavy bits of metal used for cutting people's heads off—but occasionally one would notice another item in passing, one of the paintings, or the pottery and the bits of social history attached to it. On the way to the gruesome natural or political history, one would pick up information. It was a safe and reassuring environment and allowed people to stop, look and think about things, at least in private.
	Not only was this revelation by a group of increasingly middle-aged men a surprise to their wives, it was also quite a relief. It was not a standard conversation but I use it as an example to find my jumping-off point, which is that we cannot quantify the value of museums of all types, other than to say that it is there in itself. The fact that people are not always going to museums does not mean to say that we should disregard them if they do not get enough throughput. There are very good small museums. I remember one at Dunwich on the Suffolk coast. It is a record of a town that is rapidly falling into the sea. It has won numerous awards and I was very inspired by it. Making something like that relevant is a great achievement because it tells one about something of which only the bones are left behind but which can attract one's attention.
	In the current environment, when about one-third of all television programmes that are not reality TV seem to be about history, we can encourage more people to look at the artefacts and get more information about them. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, great rows of huge cabinets with lists underneath them and signs saying, "Do not touch" are disappearing. Occasionally when I see displays like that a warm glow comes over me and I think, "Those were the days". Museums are increasingly being used to show people that there are other things to learn and look at and that is a very good thing. Everything has a history, even science and technology, and it has a point, and it has a value for studying the present. The history of science is probably one of the best ways of looking at the future of science, at least of having an idea of where to jump off from.
	We must encourage people. We must encourage museums and other bodies to be user-friendly so that people can enjoy going into them. It must be a pleasant experience. The Government, and local government, have an on-going commitment to make sure that we do this. If we do not manage to support museums, huge parts of our heritage, and the heritage industry, are in great danger of discovering that they are no longer fashionable. The density of media coverage means that it could suddenly be decided that the public has had enough of it.
	We must build on what we are doing now, build up museums and similar institutions and make sure that we allow museums to be constantly available to us in a reinvented form. Calling them all museums could well be a mistake and they should possibly be given a new title or be slightly reinvented, but I can see a new industry being invented as I speak. Interactive screens are still a comparative novelty, at least to the parents taking children around museums at the moment, but anything with a button is probably now rather boring to a child. We can invest in new structures in the way we train and progress.
	This has a scholastic element, as a museum should have all its material, not just that part of it on display, open to scholars to study and learn from. The flipside of getting rid of the large display case may be that people may study a single text or artefact more closely. We must make sure that we can see artefacts and have them explained properly so that people can study and learn from them. Perhaps we can have a book or programme available so that people pay attention to the artefact in future.
	Only the Government have the capacity to make sure that we can encourage and reinvest, and can be there when history is no longer popular, or not as popular as it is now. Only with support and ongoing commitment—from other political parties as well as the Government—when archaeologists digging trenches are no longer regarded as prime-time television can we be sure that what is available now will be available in future and will be at least as good and as deep.

Lord Waldegrave of North Hill: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington, as he touched on one of the central themes of the museum of which I have the privilege to be the chairman—unpaid, like the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is of the Railway Heritage Committee—namely, the National Museum of Science and Industry. I return to the eloquent and much appreciated speech about children and the National Railway Museum made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. We are a family of museums made up of the Science Museum in south Kensington, the National Museum of Photography, Film & Television in Bradford and the railway museum with its new and splendid out-station at Shildon, to which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has paid such tribute. It has been a great advantage to the National Railway Museum to have his expert help.
	I join the noble Lord in saying that the achievements by Locomotion at Shildon, which is in a highly deprived region, have been outstanding. The partnership that has been built with the local authority is remarkable. The effect on the local community is already astounding. My noble friend Lord Eccles—whom I congratulate and thank for instituting the debate—touched on the economics of museums and their power to create jobs and wealth in this country. A study by McKinsey stated that in its first year Tate Modern generated economic activity worth £100 million. I shall not claim activity of that scale for Shildon, but, proportionately, I almost would. New investment is coming to that deprived town. For the first time for many years there is talk of new housing there, of other investment and of people concentrating again on Shildon. That has been done in a positive way—not looking backwards—because of the effect of that museum on bringing in people. Already it has more than doubled the projected visitor numbers that it had in its first year.
	That is my first point and a point made eloquently in the National Museum Directors' Conference report of last year. It is a major industry. Of course, at the centre of its purpose is enjoyment as well as many other social purposes, but we must not underestimate how important it is to our national economy.
	The noble Viscount mentioned correctly that there were about 2,500 museums in the country, generating 100 million visitors every year, more than go to all the country's live sporting events. Thirty-seven per cent of UK adult residents—over 17 million people—visit museums and galleries at least once a year, which is one of the highest proportions in Europe; 50 per cent of school-age children visit museums and galleries at least once a year; and a quarter of all visits are by children.
	The figure is much higher for the Science Museum, although that creates one of the Science Museum's problems because, as the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Faulkner, said, long gone are the days of exhibits in glass cases. We now have the most modern, beautifully designed and highly intelligent interactive exhibits that the children can use, but they also wear them out. One problem with science and technology exhibitions—the problem is not confined to them—is that our interactive exhibits suffer wear and tear that is reflected in costs.
	The Minister should take great pride, as I do, in the fact that the numbers have increased hugely since the introduction of free entry. I support that policy, but there are some consequences. Having sat on the other side in another place, I know that it is easy to claim a great victory for some initiative but more difficult to produce the money to go with it. Museums that used to charge are compensated under a formula by the Government for free entry. Our compensation is at a low level, and as the policy has been much more successful than envisaged, a considerable strain has been put on our finances.
	I shall talk about finance. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, rightly said that not everything in the sector depended on public money. I speak for none other than my own museum and board of trustees, but the great national and regional museums depend crucially on public money. Although the sector is extremely vital and full of life and initiatives at the moment, there is also a sense of growing strain in at least some of the big museums. If one looks at the numbers produced by the National Museum Directors' Conference report, one will see that in recent years in a number of the great museums, of which mine is one, the funding has not even kept up with inflation and has far from kept up with the increase in average earnings. That puts a tremendous strain on our staff and on our relations with our staff. A high proportion of our expenditure goes on our people.
	There is a funding problem. It throws up unwelcome and difficult problems. The future of the Science Museum library has been much written about in the national press. It is difficult to see how we shall be able to fund, as we should, the maintenance of that world-class library on the history of science. We shall try to do our best.
	I pay tribute to the department; it has plenty of knocks but perhaps not many ha'pence. I pay tribute to the permanent officials in the department and to their Ministers, who have been responsive to a request that we should have an objective look at the funding of the library and of the Science Museum to see whether something can be done about it. I pay tribute to the permanent Secretary, Sue Street, and perhaps in particular to her colleague, Richard Hartman, who deals with the museums on a day-to-day basis. They have been very helpful to us.
	The issues facing the great museums are rather well dealt with. The debate is not about politics with a capital P, but I want to make a political reference. I think that it is fair to say that, at the last election, those of us who now work in the museum and arts sector gave the manifesto prize to the Conservative manifesto. It has been noted that a number of policies carried on by the last Conservative administration, in which I served, with opposition from the Labour Party, have now been adopted by the Labour Party to great acclaim. Who can complain about that? In economic terms, they have been a rather Thatcherite government—perhaps I should not use such words. To put it mildly, there has been a surprising continuity in economic policy that has been greatly to the benefit of this country.
	Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that he should continue that procedure and steal the policies in the Conservatives' arts and museum manifesto to which I pay tribute. My honourable friend in another place, Mr Hugo Swire, the Member for East Devon, who knows what he is talking about on the subject, had a good deal to do with it. It contains a number of sensible suggestions, some of which have already been made by the noble Viscount. We should, for example, return to the excellent Goodison report and reconsider some of the encouragements to giving: lifetime giving on the US model might well be a point to pick out. Other aspects of that report should be used.
	I was attracted by the idea of a national acquisitions fund. It is easy when in opposition to say we should spend more money; nonetheless, a national acquisitions fund would be very attractive. Our acquisitions budget in the Science Museum is tiny, although with help from many supporters such as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, we were able to raise money from the public, from one of the lottery funds and from private donors to buy the "Flying Scotsman", to great acclaim. We have virtually no acquisition fund. That is an idea that I hope the Government might steal from the Conservative manifesto. Even more important is the idea that we should allow museums and other arts organisations to bid for endowment from the lottery funds rather than simply adding facilities that are often difficult to fund. That seems an admirable idea.
	I end with one warning and one anxiety. The Olympics bid is coming up. It would be a tremendous opportunity to showcase the British museums. It would be in London, if we were lucky enough to win the bid. There is also an anxiety about that: after Australia and Greece won their bids, the effect was to diminish funding for arts and museum programmes. I very much hope that we can be assured by the Minister that if, as most people in the country hope, we win the Olympic bid, the other small budgets in the DCMS will be well protected. It should be seen as an opportunity for south Kensington, with the prizes being given in Hyde Park. It would be wonderful to have the great museums of Britain, effectively, as part of our bid rather than for the museums to be anxious that they might suffer.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, although it is a disappointment not to be following the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, it is a great pleasure to be following my noble friend Lord Waldegrave of North Hill, whose personal scope so impressively covers both science and the humanities.
	I congratulate my noble friend Lord Eccles on his choice of subject, on giving us this opportunity to debate it and on his comprehensive introduction to the subject. When I was a Minister, the Bowes Museum was in danger of being an orphan of the storm and I congratulate him most warmly on the trustees' solution which has been adopted and the manner in which he chairs the trust.
	I declare an interest as having been for more than a quarter of century a trustee of the Wordsworth Trust in Grasmere, which my great-grandfather founded over the period 1890 to 1891. We have had trustees at the Wordsworth Trust since 1890—for 115 years—and they have served us extremely well. I also declare an interest as the president of the British Antique Dealers Association and of the British Art Market Federation.
	I have of course read the DCMS consultation document. In the context of the 21st century, I propose to draw perhaps a little more on a Ditchley conference report from January 1999 as the 20th century was drawing to a close, at which the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminister, who is in the House today, was a participant. I want to borrow a couple of encapsulations from that conference report.
	The conference came up with five elements to a generic mission for museums. First, to collect, preserve, exhibit and interpret objects; secondly, to service and educate a wide range of publics; thirdly, to remain relevant to those publics; fourthly, to promote visual literacy; and, finally, to be a repository of scholarship. As so often, those elements are more easily stated than enacted.
	Let me dwell for a moment, even if probably over-telegraphically, on some of the shoals for those trying to carry them out. First, the dilemma of preservation versus access, or access versus the care of the objects, in a world where "sustainable" is a watchword. The objects are central. For those whom the objects feed and fire their imagination, the closer they can get to them the better. You can see school children in great museums often sitting on the floor fired in just that way because objects have been made directly available to them.
	I sometimes wonder whether the ability to optimise direct access, which of course costs money, draws enough on the funding locked up in the budgets of the educational institutions themselves. On the other side, I hope new technology is deployed as much on preventive conservation as it is on interpretation and display.
	Secondly, of course it is right that there should be different funding streams, and we have seen in higher education how breaking down the reliance on state funding has been a liberator. But when government assist this process by reducing the proportion of funding, they can create other dilemmas which militate against their own stated desires. As a single example, we all know of the massive pressure to see great exhibitions which are time limited, with institutions staying open until midnight in the final stages. Yet that pressure is in part occasioned by sponsors having, properly and necessarily, been given time and privacy earlier in the exhibition's run to invite their own guests and—I suppose I must utter the word—stakeholders to a private view.
	There is another incidence of needing to look a gift horse in the mouth, as Virgil says in the Aeneid about the Trojan horse, where the expansion of media sponsorship into culture and away from their normal alliterative standbys carries the appetite to own the content, which carries its own risks, and, to mix metaphors, museums must be careful not to give away their crown jewels.
	Thirdly, and analogously, museums can have too many masters. The museum professionals, being themselves interdisciplinary, may welcome this but ironically without setting priorities—to borrow from St Luke, interdisciplinarian, discipline thyself.
	Fourthly, some people doubt whether, in their funding decisions, the Government have a precise idea of how much it costs to run a museum. I understand that financial reporting by national museums to the Government is carried out in a manner prescribed by the department—and that may itself so inform government that they do know. But confirmation by the Minister would be welcomed. Given the vogue word "sustainability", it would also be helpful to know how the Government expect museums to carry out their capital programmes.
	Fifthly, I understand that, before the advent of the Internet the number of bookshops in this country remained magically and mysteriously constant, so that if one closed in Penzance one week, you could be sure that another would open in Tunbridge Wells the next week. So, in the same way, free entry may enlarge visitor numbers at individual museums but the number of visitors overall remains approximately constant. If so, perhaps the visual arts are not yet as embedded in our national consciousness as is music.
	However, a perhaps more interesting question than the numbers is the quality of the experience and how one measures it. Here I share a second encapsulation from the Ditchley conference. First, you can measure the soul out of an organisation; secondly, passion is not included in the indices; thirdly, a close link between measurement and money is detrimental—museums might be more adventurous if the link were not quite so direct; and, fourthly, comparability between institutions is key.
	I should be interested in the Minister's view of how quality of experience is currently measured at a level above the cleanliness of loos and the quality of coffee shops, although of course I agree with my noble friend Lord Eccles of the importance of both. And indeed, those requests of the Minister brings me happily to Ministers themselves.
	In her personal introduction to the recent DCMS document which has been quoted, Estelle Morris, soon happily to join us in your Lordships' House, began her final paragraph with the warming words:
	"We in government are passionate about the importance of our cultural heritage".
	I am profoundly sure that in Estelle Morris's case that is personally and enthusiastically true. She was of course a teacher for many years. Passion matters. But those who choose Ministers for the DCMS should be aware that cultural constituencies can quickly detect which Ministers are both passionate and knowledgeable and which are simply mouthing communications put into their mouths by officials.
	Indeed, there is sometimes a sense that the department is preoccupied with arguing insistently about de minimis questions at the margins when what might be better called for is a comprehensive championing of culture at large, and the arts in particular. Perhaps I may give an instance from the past. When the Royal Academy felt obliged to sell its great cartoon of the Madonna, the then Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, suggested to my late noble kinsman, who was the first Chief Secretary to the Treasury, that the two of them should go down one lunchtime to the National Gallery where the cartoon was on show to see it with their own eyes. After they had gazed at it for an appropriate period, the Prime Minister said to his Chief Secretary, "And now that we have seen it, how are we going to persuade the Chancellor"—who, parenthetically, was Selwyn Lloyd—"that we should buy this for the nation?". That was leadership from the top of the highest order.
	My noble friend Lord Eccles referred to the Goodison review. In an era when so many of the problems of museums would be alleviated by the discharge of philanthropy, I hope the Government will find it within themselves in due course, as my noble friend said, to deliver a proper response to the Goodison review, which was of course only carried out at the Government's invitation.
	Acquisitions march with capital expenditure as the areas where the Government do not feel any obvious obligation to be helpful or generous, although I give them considerable credit for their handling of gifts in lieu of tax. I can understand any government blenching at serial requests for help to keep great objects in this country, but I should be interested to learn from the Minister how far there exists a comprehensive compendium of gaps in the collections of individual museums, since it is the filling of gaps which will make our museums even better educational resources than currently. That process requires deliberate focus.
	If at one end we are genuinely seeing green shoots of new philanthropy, at the other we must help to ensure that all museums which wish to develop fund-raising departments are assisted to do so, including perhaps collaboratively in the same way as nine museums in Lancashire are co-operating where specific services or expertise can be provided more economically across their group than in museums individually. That is particularly so in the development field, where the land has to be tilled and the seed sown before any financial harvest can be seen or enjoyed.
	On access, of course I applaud efforts to introduce to museums people within our various communities who have never been to them before, but I suggest, diffidently, that one way of achieving that is to introduce representatives of those communities not only into the full-time staff of museums, but also and in particular among volunteers.
	However, as in all human groups, it is the leadership of the museum sector that is critical to its advance. I applaud Vivien Duffield's impressive training initiative, over which Mr Chris Smith, soon to join us, presides, just as he now does over the Wordsworth Trust, but I cannot help wondering whether there is not a niche for opportunity for briefer, smaller-scale but high-class training schemes locally applied, as in the Lancashire example that I cited.
	In the mean time, to revert to the allusions of my noble friend Lord Eccles to a trustee mode, one of the greatest attractions of that mode occurs in the local authority sector, where one can overcome the problems of the museum hierarchy through that method, where the head of a great museum in a great city can sometimes only be an assistant-director because of his reporting relationship to the director of leisure and tourism in that city.
	For those of us who are passionate about museums of every size and description, the debate has been a delight and, I hope, may soon become a quarry. The late and much lamented Conrad Russell's father always used to say that there were no circumstances in which he would not be actively cheered up by the offer of a chocolate peppermint cream. For myself, although I acknowledge particular pleasures in particular museums, the possibility of visiting a museum has the same effect on me as chocolate peppermint creams had on the late Bertrand Russell.
	I am already looking forward to the time when we will discuss this subject again and my one regret is that I have never visited the cathedral on the Continent of whose treasury the late Douglas Woodruff said that it had the unique characteristic not only of possessing the skull of the infant Samuel but the skull of Samuel as an old man as well.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate. It is not often in this House, first, that one has to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, which is always difficult; but also that one thinks that one would like to have a rather longer debate. We have had some excellent, well-informed speeches and I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on initiating the debate and for the speech that he made to start it off in such informative way.
	I declare a great personal enthusiasm for museums and galleries. I am very lucky to have a young son who enjoys going to them. When I totted up the galleries and museums that I visited just in recent months, it was a pretty long list. It included the Science Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Natural History Museum, the British Museum, the Tate Modern, the National Maritime Museum, the Royal Observatory, the Horniman Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, the Imperial War Museum, the Dulwich Picture Gallery and Kew Gardens.
	I do not think that that is particularly untypical. People may see them over a rather longer period when they do not have a seven year-old son who likes going to museums, but I am sure that everyone has their own personal favourites among museums. Indeed, I believe that Mark Fisher has even published a book of 1,000 best museums, so he must be congratulated. I certainly need to read it to see whether he agrees with my conclusions.
	Without being invidious, my favourite is probably the "Earthquake" exhibition in the Natural History Museum and the mummy lectures, where they have X-rays of mummies, in the British Museum, which was very timely as it took place just before I went to Egypt. That is the kind of thing that can really inspire enthusiasm, and certainly did among my family. Most recently, last weekend, I visited the Cabinet War Rooms, where the new Churchill museum is situated. That is absolutely stunning. It is a real hidden secret within about five minutes from here. The modern technology displays there are quite extraordinary and I recommend a quick trot across the road.
	I pay tribute to those Peers who are trustees and board members of museums, especially those who carry considerable responsibility, and also to trustees generally, who give up an enormous amount of their time on a voluntary basis for the well-being of those museums. It is one thing being a consumer—indeed, an enthusiastic visitor and participator, such as me—but it is quite another to scratch below the surface and to be responsible, as a trustee, a board member or a policy-maker, and to see what impact government policy is having on museums and consider how we ensure that they thrive in their activities.
	We need to understand the massive contribution that museums—national, regional and local—make to our national life. I was especially impressed by A Manifesto for Museums published last year by the Museums Association, the MLA, the museums' directors and others, which sets out very clearly what museums contribute. In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, mentioned the number of visitors—the percentage of adult residents in the UK who visit museums and the number of children who visit museums. The figure that he did not mention was the massive increase in public satisfaction about museums. That is not common in many institutions. We should also pay tribute to the National Lottery and the Heritage Lottery Fund which, over the years, have helped us massively to improve the quality of exhibits and produced some very exciting extensions to our national museums.
	One element highlighted by A Manifesto for Museums was the fact that museums are a key centre for learning. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, emphasised that in his speech. My offices are bang next door to the Museum of London, next to the foot bridge that connects one half of London Wall to the other. Every day, you see schoolchildren traipsing over that bridge and you know that they will have a good experience there. There is a regular flow of schoolchildren and those visits are vital. It is vital to introduce children to museums, to different ideas and historical and cultural influences, as many noble Lords have said. Museums are the most highly valued source of information—well above newspapers and the Internet. It is a horrible phrase, but there are 100 million educational sessions a year. That is very high.
	Then we have the economic impact of museums. Several noble Lords alluded to that. The benefits in pure economic terms alone are impressive—about £2 billion in overall economic impact; and the sector employs more 40,000 people. Turning to travel and tourism, the prime reason for many people to come to London is because of our museums. Four out of the top tourist attractions—I think that this figure was also mentioned—are museums. The Tate Modern is the world's most popular gallery of modern art in the world, so it is clearly a major magnet to London. When we consider that we have a massive tourism deficit—putting it bluntly, about £17 billion in the difference between the outflow of British tourists and the inflow of foreign tourists—our museums are crucial in helping us to move towards balance.
	Then there is museums and regeneration. You have only to look at the way that the Tate in Liverpool had a huge impact on regeneration. A Manifesto for Museums also makes points about museums being civic and community spaces and catalysts for creativity. They are centres for research and innovation and agents for social change, promoting inter-cultural understanding. That is also extremely important and an increasing area of interest for museums.
	Finally, the international aspect is becoming of increasing importance. When I talked to the British Museum in preparation for this debate, it talked about its Africa project, which encourages links with African curators, helps to train them, build their skills and, indeed, will result in the British Museum putting on a big exhibition in Nairobi in Kenya next year. That will be an extremely important exchange of artifacts from Britain with Kenya. That will help cultural understanding and be a great partnership between the British Museum and the Kenyan Government.
	The Government published their document in January. Rightly, it raises several issues surrounding citizenship and museums; the fact that the public are demanding a more rich experience from museums; and the whole issue of access and innovation. One of the key things that museums do that we must ensure that we allow them to is to create communities of interest, but we also have the research and scholarship functions, which must co-exist with some of the more, if you like, commercial functions of museums. There are many competing attractions in museums.
	Some of the press gave the DCMS a hard time about some of the language in the report. Perhaps phrases such as:
	"Collections are at the heart of everything museums do"
	and,
	"Museums are the way we connect our past with our present"
	are slightly platitudinous, but it was good that the DCMS put together a document.
	There are some ominous aspects to the document. On measuring cultural value, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, had it absolutely right when he said that you cannot measure passion. Looking at paragraph 85, if we are not careful the DCMS will impose something similar to NHS targets. That is a slightly worrying trend, so I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government are not about to introduce targets, statistics and measurability to determine whether museums do a good job.
	Seriously, how practical is the document in dealing with issues arising from the activities of museums? I am not totally convinced. I could go into areas with which I do not believe the department has come to grips—for instance, the return of major works of art, major exhibits and the virtual aspect of museums, on which we must make big advances.
	In the last few remaining minutes I wish to address funding, on which there were alarming headlines in December. It has been very interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave. We have had some great advances. There have been increases in admissions of 71 per cent in the National Museum of Science and Technology, 96 per cent in the Natural History Museum and 113 per cent in the V&A. We all take delight in the fact that the free-admission policy has resulted in many more visitors.
	However, are our major museums being compensated adequately for the removal of admission charges? The formula is probably correct but the root of the problem is the core funding available. It does not take a statistician to work out that cost-of-living rises do not compensate adequately for wage increases, which take place at a faster rate. Those are the facts. Museums are not being compensated adequately in that respect. It is worrying when a major institution such as the National Museum of Science and Technology faces the possibility of having to dispose of its major library—I know that a review is ongoing.
	I am very pleased that the Chancellor found a way forward on Gift Aid. We all welcomed that. Yet the authors of A Manifesto for Museums claim that an extra £115 million per annum is required to provide adequately for museums' needs. I hope that the Minister will address that. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, I also hope that he will address the Goodison report, a major document to which the Government have not responded.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Eccles for introducing this timely debate. I was particularly interested in his focus on enjoyment of museums because we sometimes forget that it is an important part of why we go. Obviously, we go to learn, for scholarship and for lots of other reasons, but enjoyment is an important part if we are to encourage more visitors to museums.
	The noble Viscount talked about the Bowes Museum, which, although a regional museum, has a collection of national importance, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Brooke. My noble friend Lord Eccles talked about the tax regime available under the current Government, which is helpful to museums.
	The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, talked about the National Railway Museum, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked about the museums that he had been to and their value. We cannot underestimate the value of museums, whatever they may be, large or small. My noble friend Lord Waldegrave is responsible for the National Museum of Science and Technology, an extremely important national museum—it is important to the economy and tourism. I hope that the Minister will address the noble Lord's extremely important point about the strain that the Olympic bid may put on the DCMS's budget.
	My noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville was a distinguished Secretary of State for National Heritage—I say that for no other reason than that I was his Minister in this House, and on his behalf I took through the original lottery Bill. One day we may be able to return the National Lottery to what it was supposed to be, as opposed to all the other things the Government have done over the years, which have raped and pillaged some of the funding, to the detriment of the arts and museums.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, gave an impressive list of museum visits but he has many more to do. In this country there are nearly 600 independent museums, 530 local authority museums, 134 National Trust museums, 87 armed services museums, 57 university museums, various English Heritage museums and 32 national museums. There are a huge number of museums in this country; they are an important part of our life.
	The Government's introduction of free admission to national museums has been a great success. We must commend them on their courage to do it and on putting in place the funding to enable it to happen. Free entry has succeeded in attracting a wider audience, a more diverse range of visitors, but it continues to put funding pressure on museums so that the grant in aid properly compensates them for the considerable increase in costs resulting from the increased number of visitors.
	The important question, which my colleague in another place Hugo Swire asked and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, echoed is: have the Government adequately compensated national museums for either their loss of revenue caused by losing entrance fee charges or the increased cost of coping with the extra visitors? The jury is out; we cannot say, but there are some indications that it is not the case. The Science and Technology Museum is concerned that its funding has not kept up. I know that the Government do not want that to happen, but by nature the Treasury always wants to look for savings and departments always ask for more.
	It is important that funding remains sufficient if we are to continue free entry, which has been enormously successful and has resulted in many more visitors. The number of children visiting has increased by 80 per cent, or 3.5 million, since the introduction of free entry. That is extremely important. The DCMS annual report shows that nearly 1 million more people from less privileged backgrounds have visited since 2002, and it continues to want to broaden access. That is extremely important. One must compliment the Government and give them credit where they deserve it. But we must be careful about the term "social inclusion" because it sometimes implies that these are special areas to which the Government will reach out, and sometimes I worry that that means just excluding the rest of us so that the focus becomes too narrow. It must be broad.
	There are still concerns about the national galleries. I note that concerns were raised in the National Museum Directors' Conference about the Government asking museums to pursue so many differing, exacting new objectives. We must ensure that, if museums are asked to do that, they have the funding to manage.
	My noble friend Lord Eccles asked about the Goodison report, an extremely important report which I read with some care last night. In all the report makes 43 recommendations. I do not expect that the Minister will give us an answer to all of those but perhaps he can answer the specific question that my noble friend Lord Eccles asked on recommendation 8 and give us some idea of the Government's reaction to the report—the areas where he agrees or disagrees.
	My noble friend was concerned also about the Heritage Lottery Fund, which he asked the Minister about. I suppose that at this stage I should declare an interest. I am a trustee of the Stanley Spencer Gallery in Cookham, which has recently put in a grant application to the Heritage Lottery Fund. We wait to see what we will get. It is an extremely small museum: one room that contains pictures by one artist, Stanley Spencer. It is located in the village where he spent most of his life and most of his time painting. We are an exclusive collection but we try to be as inclusive as possible by encouraging the maximum number of people to visit. Between 12,000 and 14,000 people visit annually; the numbers does not seem to vary. It is all privately funded and we charge a very modest admission. Anyway, that is my interest to declare.
	The noble Lord, Lord Evans, is in his place. Some of the homework that I did for this debate—I do not have much time to go through it now—was to read his report, Renaissance in the Regions, on English museums. It is an extremely thorough and interesting report and goes into great deal about the fact that museums are the most popular attractions in this country. It also goes into all the funding aspects. I noted that he was particularly concerned about the fact that when local authorities come under funding pressure, museums are often the first thing they look to cut. It is an important point.
	The noble Lord's report recommended the re-creation of the network of regional hubs. Perhaps the Minister can say something about that, and about the current situation and whether it is a success. I looked at the website and saw that 10 or 12 hubs have been created. It would be useful to know whether there will be any more or whether that is it, and whether the Minister is satisfied with their progress.
	The noble Lord's report also talked about partnerships between local and national museums, which is very important. As we know, many of the larger museums have in their collections objects that are not seen for many years but are simply hidden away. His report is also about scholarship, another important issue.
	As for the result of the noble Lord's report, he is able to dig his noble friend on the Front Bench in the ribs and ask, "What about it?" His report contains 11 recommendations. I am sure that he knows much better than I do how many of those recommendations have been accepted by his noble friend. The rest of us perhaps do not know, but it would be useful to have some indication.
	Before the debate I looked up each party's manifesto on the arts. I apologise that I did not look up the Liberal Democrats' manifesto. However, I did look up my own party's manifesto, which is important, and then looked up the Labour Party's manifesto. I was pleased to note that our manifesto on the arts was twice as long as Labour's. Disappointingly, I have to admit that theirs was one and a half lines and ours was only three lines. However, we published a more detailed document, Action on Arts & Heritage, which contained a number of more detailed and important commitments.
	I end by saying that we believe that the arts and heritage are vital parts of any civilised society. We want culture to be at the heart of British life and we recognise the Government's role in supporting and encouraging culture—whatever it may be, whether museums, galleries or the arts—through public funding.
	However, it is important to understand that there is a difference between public support and political control. Our museums and galleries excel when they are given the freedom to do so. Too much government interference in our culture, museums and galleries can stifle creativity and erode freedom in society. It is important that the department is not too prescriptive. I think that that is the message that has been echoed by all those who have spoken today.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I share with all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for raising such an important issue. He has given us a chance to explore—all too briefly, but all too accurately—the issues. My problem is that, at the last count, I have been asked more than 60 questions, whereas I have only 20 minutes in which to construct a reply. I therefore apologise if I appear a little hurried in some areas.
	I am delighted to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has moved from the transport brief to the transports of delight represented by the DCMS brief. I assure him that our manifesto was fairly brief on the arts because of the old Wren motto; "look around you" if you want to see what we stand for on the arts and our achievements in these years. I think that the debate has enabled noble Lords, in all fairness, to pay tribute to the substantial progress in recent years. I pay tribute in particular to two colleagues who will join us in the near future, Chris Smith and Estelle Morris, neither of whom currently are right honourable Members of the other place. They are in limbo but will shortly join us. I hope we will have the benefit of their contribution to our next debate on this important subject. I am sure that we will all welcome that.
	There is an element of contradiction between the concern that the department ought not to be too controlling in its approach to the museum sector—I fully share and understand that point; it is deeply appreciated—and the demand and constant pressure from all sides for increased resources. It is inevitable that the department will have to meet certain criteria in its allocation. On the most general point of all, however, I reassure the House that the department and the Government value the contribution that museums and art galleries make to our national life.
	I shall make an obvious point. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, raised it in his constructive contribution. One of the reasons why the Olympic Committee made it fairly clear that bids from provincial cities in Britain would be unlikely to succeed was the overwhelming value that the rest of the world puts on London's resources as a capital city. One can think of a range of resources where, as the Olympic Committee made pretty clear, there are deficiencies in resources. I should add, however, that the most recent evaluation of the bid indicates that we have put right those deficiencies. That is why we are so optimistic.
	We pride ourselves on London's enormous cultural strength—its galleries and museums. They are the greatest national asset. I defy anyone to find a visitor to this city who does not emphasise that strength. People come to London for a range of reasons—on business or to play a specific role—but the vast majority of visitors to this country regard London's cultural provision as a great draw. That is why we have such staggering figures for attendance at the National Gallery and all the other major London galleries and museums.
	I appreciate the generous comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and other speakers in the debate. We take pride in the improvement in the figures in recent years. I therefore believe that the anxieties expressed in the debate are the anxieties of success. They are a recognition that the free museums policy has increased patronage by substantial numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, gave those figures in great detail, and it is not for me to repeat them, except to say that they emphasise the extent to which our population is increasing its use of museums and art galleries—both adults and children. Although in certain respects the next generation is not strong in terms of behaviour, let us look at the positive side too; namely, that we see extraordinarily large numbers of young people going to major exhibitions.
	That has necessitated substantial increased investment. I will give the most basic figure on that, and, as I said, the noble Lord gave us some very useful figures. We have increased expenditure from £241 million in 1998 to £423 million for 2007. That is a substantial commitment of resources. I understand the anxieties, expressed in many parts of the House, about whether those resources are sufficient to keep us running against the background of the increased number attending at present, when we anticipate increased demands for the future. If policies for increased participation are successful, there will be demands. That is why I want to give assurances.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was perhaps a little uncharitable in his approach. Of course we cannot foresee the budgets beyond 2007 and 2008, because they are only projections that we are working to at present. I want him to understand, however, that we have in place a structure for consultation with museums that will improve relationships with the departments, and a structure for the delivery of funds. The development of the Renaissance project means that we can address the issues of regional museums and the hub structure more effectively.
	Some of the most striking increases in attendance have been at regional museums. I am conscious that a number of noble Lords who have spoken in the debate are from the London area—not all—but I emphasise that, just as London benefits hugely from such facilities, the regeneration of many of our major cities in recent years can be measured significantly in terms of their cultural development.
	I recently went to Newcastle and was struck by the fact that the changing face of the city related to the increased cultural facilities there—the Sage in Gateshead and the Baltic Exchange. The significance of architecture in regeneration is also not to be underestimated. That is also true for Liverpool, our emerging City of Culture, a position that it will take up in 2008. That city too is showing enormous development with regard to its museums and art galleries. It should be recognised that we are not just being London-centred when looking at the improvements in investment and development in recent years.
	I recognise that a debate of this kind is meant to pose questions, and I will address myself to some of the key ones. The Goodison report was addressed in the opening speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and commented on by a number of subsequent speakers. In certain crucial areas, we intend to fulfil some of the recommendations. Annual funding will double by 2007–08. I have just mentioned the Renaissance programme for regional museums, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner for bringing to our attention one of the most successful: he talked about the development of Shildon, an exciting recent innovation. None of us would underestimate the significance of the National Railway Museum at York as one of the great museums of our country, capable of attracting visitors in their thousands.
	The free access commitment, which covers the main national museums and galleries, and the VAT refund scheme that helps deliver free access will be extended to university museums and galleries. There was an issue with regard to the Goodison report about the 50-year rule for export licences. We do not intend to change that rule. We recognise the strength of the arguments on one side, but we need to strike a balance between the need to preserve our heritage and the interests of owners, and the need for the art trade to move items without excessive bureaucracy.
	On the issue raised in the Goodison report of the financial implications of the transfer of export licensing and cultural property functions to the MLA, of course there are one-off costs involved, and they are of some significance, but we are providing the necessary support for that. We regard the savings that would be made from that transfer as being helpful in those terms.
	Reference was made to the location of the Export Licensing Unit and whether it would be moved outside London. We will bear the issue of costs in mind when we move the unit. On the impact of the transfer of the export licensing service to the MLA and how that was communicated to the effective sectors, we have been in full consultation.
	We recognise that the Goodison report is a significant and salient document and one that helps to guide issues of policy. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, raised the issue of the costs of running a museum. I am well aware of the fact that the department cannot look totally sympathetic in all circumstances because of the constraints on budgets, but we want to develop additional funding in the present spending review in order to improve the position with regard to buildings.
	Quality is an age-old problem. The use of the slide rule potentially destroys enjoyment, passion and commitment. How does one measure the qualities of a service? We have to strike a balance with resources that enables us to measure comparative success across the country. I am shying away and trying to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we are not into the issue of health service targets and the detail he has apostrophised with regard to that service—sometimes less than fairly, but at other times with some accuracy.
	We have to have some clear measurement of effective investment, which is why we are concerned to increase the degree of co-operation with the regional hubs and to work in consultation with local museums, supporting them and giving the department a clearer understanding of how those museums are working and where support could be best and most effectively given.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked where the gaps lay in museum collections. That is a crucial issue, which has been studied by our recent working party of the Museums Association. Its report is due next week. We look forward to its arrival, and we shall study the conclusions with great care. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having identified an important area to which we need to attend.
	The noble Lord, Lord Addington, also drew attention to the need for continuing investment. Of course he is right to say that the great danger is that the successes may outrun the budgets that have been provided for the developments. I merely seek to assure the House that the Government have a clear priority to make free access to museums work and to encourage wider participation.
	Reference has also been made to the educational function of museums and art galleries. That is a crucial part of the Government's overall strategy. Next week, we shall enjoy an opportunity to debate urban regeneration and the arts, and we shall be able to revisit the issue in additional depth. However, there is no doubt that if we want to improve educational achievement and to tackle social exclusion, our museums have a significant role to play. We are committed to ensuring that they have the resources to do so.
	I am conscious that the debate has highlighted an area that forms only a small part of the national budget, but one that is very important to the educational, welfare and cultural budget of the nation. Therefore the sector is attracting increased attention from the Government. Within a month, we shall know whether the bid for the Olympic Games has been successful. That will occasion a substantial generation of resources towards facilities in London. It will also mean that we will need to build on and maintain the successes of our museums and art galleries, so that London is presented as the great host city of the games, if that proves to be the case. I emphasise that the bid would provide an opportunity for generating an additional commitment of resources that the Government will consider keenly if—when—the result in a month's time proves to be favourable.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister, but does that mean that he is giving us the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, was asking for and is of some concern to museum directors?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not tying investment in museums with the question of the success of the London bid. Rather, I seek to build on the point made by noble Lords around the House: the capital city needs to nurture, cherish and develop its cultural resources because they make it the focal point that it is. That will be further emphasised if we are successful in the bid for the Olympic Games.
	I want to establish for noble Lords that our commitment to the development of resources for the museums and art galleries of this country, at national and local level, is an important one. We have already indicated the nature of the resources that we intend to devote to it up to 2007, and further demands on the budget will be addressed sympathetically.
	In that framework, I emphasise that we are concerned that institutions should be run effectively. I was pleased to note that several noble Lords declared their interests by indicating that they were trustees of significant institutions. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is chairman of the Bowes Museum. We look on trusteeship as an important form of institutional governance for museums because it means that the department can play its proper role, allocating the available resources as accurately as it can while operating at arm's length from individual institutions. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, that the independence of trustees changed their relationship with other bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, also stressed that point in the context of local authorities.
	The trustee structure enables the arm's-length relationship to be maintained and thus, I hope, allays the fears voiced by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, in his opening remarks that the department might be involved in heavy-handed measuring, and thus become caught up in an exercise of heavy and intense bureaucracy. That is not the model that we seek to develop in our relationship with institutions, not least because it is clear that one does not need to be heavy-handed with institutions that have been so successful in responding to increased resources by introducing highly successful policies that encourage people to attend and value exhibitions, permanent and temporary, on a scale that we have never seen before. Where the Government have made available additional resources, the institutions have responded across the range with considerable enthusiasm.
	I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. Again I apologise that I have not been able to cover the myriad points raised, but clear themes have emerged. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, deserves our gratitude for bringing forward this important issue.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I apologise for intervening at the end of the Minister's remarks when I was not able to listen to the whole debate, but I understand that the topic I wish to approach him on has not been covered.
	The Minister may have seen last week in the newspapers an article by the director of the British Museum on the assurances given by the Government at the time of the invasion of Iraq that funds would be made available for the reconstruction of Iraq's cultural heritage. He will be aware that the British Museum sent a mission to Iraq with a view to establishing what needed to be done, in the hope that a plan might be developed in conjunction with the Iraqi cultural authorities that would be funded in part by the United Kingdom.
	Can the noble Lord tell us whether any additional funding has been made available to the British Museum for that purpose, or whether the Government are considering any such funding? If not, how do they think Iraq will ever recover its pre-eminence in the Middle East in its museums and cultural arts heritage?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I recognise the importance of the point that he raises, and I do not doubt that it is relevant to the expenditure commitments of my department. However, we have had a debate that has had a coherence to it because Members of the House have addressed themselves to a range of discrete issues introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and to which I have sought to respond. The matter raised by the noble Lord is somewhat extraneous to this debate. I regret to say that I am not briefed on it. A careful look at the subject matter of the debate shows that it would be surprising if I had been asked about it. A little forewarning might have meant that I would have been able to respond, but, I regret, I am not briefed to give him an intelligent response at this juncture.

Viscount Eccles: My Lords, just before we finish, would the Minister be kind enough to write to me on the subject of the directions from the DCMS to the National Heritage Memorial Fund and thus to the Heritage Lottery Fund under its Acts of Parliament?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have sought to indicate in broad terms the light touch adopted by the department. We have never received a complaint from the National Heritage Memorial Fund about a heavy-handed approach adopted by the department. It is not the department's role to direct, but rather from to time to indicate where the priorities lie. Decisions are taken by the Heritage Lottery Fund on an independent basis. During our time in government, we have not done anything to change the structure of that relationship. However, I shall be only too pleased to respond more fully in writing to the noble Lord.

Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I thank all Members who made such wide-ranging and interesting contributions to the debate. I also thank the Minister for the replies he gave to the points raised. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Deaths in Custody

Baroness Stern: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on deaths in custody (3rd Report, Session 2004–05, HL Paper 15), what plans they have to reduce the number of deaths in custody.
	My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to open this debate, which I do with some diffidence. I was not personally involved with the bulk of work that led to the report. I joined the Joint Committee on Human Rights at the end of the process. I am therefore particularly grateful that so many other distinguished members of the committee from this House will be speaking.
	I am also exceptionally glad that the debate has provided an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to make his first contribution in the House.
	We are debating a report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, a committee of both Houses which was chaired from its establishment until the end of the last Session by Jean Corston from the other place. She was the founding chairman and a most esteemed and successful one. We shall benefit greatly when she joins us in the House, as we shall from the arrival of David Chidgey, also a past member of the committee.
	Sometimes questions of human rights observance can seem obscure and legalistic. This report is not about anything obscure or legalistic. It is about human rights at its most immediate and universal. It is about the right to life enshrined in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
	It is also a report full of tragedies because it concerns people—mainly distressed people in need of care—who have lost their lives, and lost them while in the care of state agencies.
	However, the report is not only a chronicle of tragedies and a critique of processes. It goes much further. It seeks to show how an important human rights principle—the right to life—needs to be understood and implemented in everyday practice. It exemplifies a human rights approach which is not a "be careful or you might be caught out" approach. Protecting the right to life is a positive requirement that should guide policy and practice at all levels. It should help all staff who are responsible for locking up their fellow human beings to understand what the priorities of their job are and to know when they have done well.
	There is no time in a debate of this nature to give a full account of the committee's report, its conclusions and all its recommendations. I would strongly recommend the report as well worth reading in its entirety. We are grateful to the very expert staff who serve the Joint Committee with so much dedication. Clearly for them this work is not just a job.
	I shall concentrate now on the main conclusions and recommendations of the report itself and the government response, published by the committee in March 2005. My summary of the committee's conclusions and recommendations will be very brief. We said that there are more people than ever in custody and many of them should not be there. The conditions in which they are held are bad for them, overcrowded and far from home. Many of them have acute special needs, such as mental health and substance abuse problems. They are exceptionally vulnerable and should be held elsewhere.
	The people who look after them on our behalf are under great pressure and are not properly trained for what they have to do. Mentally ill people are being held in prison because there are not enough secure psychiatric places.
	The result of all these factors is a failure on the part of the state to meet the duty of care required for compliance with Article 2. As stated in paragraph 372 of the report, the heart of the problem is a,
	"misplaced over-reliance on the prison system . . . the imprisonment of such vulnerable people is at the root of the problem itself".
	The report is not only concerned with prison deaths. It notes the high level of mental health problems among those who die in police custody and the need for training and professional support for police custody officers. It comments on the inappropriate use of police cells rather than hospitals as places of safety under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. It expresses concern at the apparent increase in deaths in immigration detention and comments on the inadequacy of the statistics on deaths in psychiatric hospitals.
	The main finding of the report is one of a failure of the system. The problem is not to be solved by removing more ligature points from cells or screwing beds to the floor so that they cannot be upturned and used as makeshift gallows, although such measures are important. The problem needs addressing, so the report says, at a high level, by the Home Office and the Department of Health working together to establish a permanent and
	"cross-departmental expert task-force",
	with a remit covering all aspects of deaths in custody. Once established, the Government would need to listen to what the task force said and they would need to act accordingly. That is the committee's main recommendation.
	The Government replied to the committee's report in February this year. In their response the Government accept the need to learn the lessons and to change policy and practice where it is needed. The committee has been promised a further response to the proposal for an expert task force by August this year. Perhaps in her reply the Minister will give some indication of how the discussions on establishing such a task force are proceeding and whether the response is likely to be positive.
	In the time remaining to me I should like to make three points. First, I am very glad that the committee in its work found the time to meet and seek the views, in private, of the families of some of those who have died in custody. The committee's account of this meeting notes that the experiences of these families has led them to,
	"lose confidence in the capacity of the state to protect people in its care and to deliver justice".
	One of the purposes of this debate is to remind these families that their concerns have been heard and understood. It may be that one of these families was that of Joseph Scholes. His case has been raised previously in this House. It is a matter of great regret to me, and no doubt to other noble Lords, that the recommendation of the committee that a public inquiry should be held into Joseph's death, was not accepted by the Government, especially since three more children, aged respectively 14, 15 and 16, have died in our custody—that is, the custody of our state—since Joseph died.
	Secondly, I note that page five of the Government's reply states:
	"Deaths in state custodial settings remain rare events".
	The use of the word "rare" is interesting. Today is 9 June. The Minister will be aware that last Thursday, 2 June, a woman prisoner died allegedly by her own hand in Eastwood Park prison. Last Friday, 3 June, a man died allegedly by his own hand in Gloucester prison. On the same day, a man died seemingly a self-inflicted death on HM prison ship "The Weare". Last Sunday, 5 June, allegedly from suicide, a man died in Bristol prison. The Minister is one of the most fluent and meticulous users of the English language that this House has had the opportunity and pleasure to listen to. Will she comment in her reply on the use of the word "rare" in the Government's response?
	Finally, I pay tribute to the many staff in the Prison Service who save lives every day. They cut down those who try to kill themselves; they deal with the trauma when a prisoner succeeds; they work in Prison Service headquarters to develop policies to try to meet their duty of care. I pay tribute also to the staff in the police service, who have to deal with many mentally ill people without the training and resources that they need. They deserve more support than they are currently receiving from a government who passed the Human Rights Act and assert their commitment to social justice. I look forward very much to hearing the other speakers and to the Minister's reply

Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House would want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, for having introduced this debate today. She was right to emphasise that human rights are not an appendix to our way of life; they are a central pillar of the civilised society that we say we want to be. This has to be evident in all aspects of national life, not least in what goes on in places of detention.
	Like the noble Baroness, I am looking forward immensely to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. It is fair to say, and I do not think that anyone will disagree, that what he did for the Prison Service was exemplary in terms of the quality of courage, leadership and integrity that he brought to everything to which he turned his hand. We are all far more aware of our responsibilities as a result of his service than we would otherwise have been.
	I too want to pay tribute to Jean Corston, Member of Parliament as she then was, in the chair. People can say that I would be biased because I find myself on the same side as her in politics, but it is true that all of us on the committee, irrespective of our political allegiances, found her to be a great chair and to be particularly fair and balanced in her approach. Her commitment to the issues was beyond doubt.
	It is essential also to underline our appreciation of the clerk, the staff and the advisers. The amount of work which they tackle for this committee is huge. The quality of what they do is outstanding and no one in this House should take that for granted. We are well served.
	It is essential also to underline what the noble Baroness said about the contacts that we had throughout our inquiry with the Prison Service. This is a difficult issue, because one is always trying to estimate the prevailing culture in the Prison Service. I am not one who believes that the battle has yet been won. Great advances are being made. There is still too much of the warehousing mentality. But I have to say that I was cheered and inspired by the quality and commitment of some of those—a growing number—who are now within the Prison Service who have a vision of what it should be and how the work should be undertaken. They deserve our full-hearted support so that their position can be strengthened.
	The report speaks for itself, so it is unnecessary to underline it in detail, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, has summarised it very clearly. But there are one or two things that should be said. First, while the Government should be thanked for the fullness of their reply, I must say that I found it disappointing. When we came together as a committee to draft the report, what was impressive was the degree to which all those involved were feeling angry—and somebody actually used the word "angry" in discussion. We were dismayed; we felt that there was urgency in the situation, which had to be addressed immediately. That sense of urgency and the magnitude of the task just does not come through in the rationalised language of the Government's response.
	It is really impossible to overstate our concern at what we encountered. One death in custody, in a place which is the responsibility of all of us here—not of the state, somewhere abstract and separate, but of all of us here—is one death too many. And when that happens repeatedly among the young, it is alarming. As we went about our work, I detected on occasion a gap between the intentions of Ministers and those at senior levels of policy and the reality on the ground. It was not that orders were not being obeyed.
	Let me give one example. In a discussion in the committee, which is recorded in the evidence, we probed whether Ministers felt that adequate resources were now available in the Prison Service for mental health work. The reply was very reassuring. However, I did not meet a single person working in the prisons, in the health sphere, who believed that the resources in place to meet the mental health needs of prisoners began to be adequate. They recognised that certain advances were being made in physical health, but in mental health the situation was bad. Of course, we have to recognise that mental healthcare is a poor relation in national health services as well. I should declare an interest, as I have a daughter who works in that sphere and who never leaves me in any doubt about mental health being the tail-end Charlie in terms of health provision. But the situation in the prisons has to be faced.
	There are other specific examples, which we came across in our work, which illustrate in particular just how upsetting the conditions are. First, I refer to the presence of children in prison; there should be no children in prison at all. It is simply not acceptable for a nation of our wealth to say that we cannot make special provision of secure care under local authority administration for youngsters, instead of putting them into the soul-destroying situation of prison—which it will be for the young, inevitably, however hard-working and dedicated are the prison staff in a formal prison situation.
	There is the very special issue of women, who represent 6 per cent of the prison population and more than half the incidents in the sphere that we are discussing. The matter requires great attention for the women themselves, their families and dependants. It is a matter in which there is no room for complacency.
	One thing that really left its mark on me was the degree to which staff in the Prison Service were saying to us in clear language, "We are being asked to do things for which we are not equipped". They said that many of the people that they were dealing with should never have been in prison at all. That is not to say that there is not an issue of security and protection for the public; of course there is. But those people should be in special accommodation, in special situations in which their needs in terms of mental disturbance and mental illness can be a priority consideration for which provision is made, and not an add-on.
	If we started with a clean sheet of paper and looked at the social challenges and the delinquent behaviour with which we are confronted, and asked ourselves what we needed to meet the situation, I believe that we would come up with something completely different from what we are trying to tinker with now. And I believe that that would probably be no more expensive than trying to tackle the task in a prison situation which is not designed to meet the needs of the mentally disturbed and sick. Human rights and our concern for those people must be put back into the centre of the culture, so that not only the leaders of the service but everyone who is trained to take part in it understands that it is part of their professional duty.

Lord Bowness: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, for securing this debate. Like previous speakers I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who will bring his great experience to this issue.
	I too would like from this side of your Lordships' House to endorse absolutely the remarks that the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, made about the chairman of the Joint Committee, Jean Corston, who is soon to join us in this House. It is a great pity that we do not have the benefit of her contribution in this afternoon's debate.
	As a member of the Joint Committee that produced this report, there is little that I seek to add or, indeed, can usefully add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, has already said. I contribute to this debate only to emphasise that the report and its contents were shared across party and among those of no party and to emphasise just how strongly we all felt about this issue even if, when we started the inquiry, we did not believe that we would feel so strongly about it.
	Those feelings are encapsulated in the conclusions to which the noble Baroness referred. I shall not take the time of your Lordships in referring to them again. However, I must emphasise that the report does not just call for a change in practice within the narrow confines of what is happening in police stations, detention centres or prisons. I say to your Lordships and to the noble Baroness who will reply to the debate that the question which we are raising is in effect about the whole of our criminal justice policy. I refer to one sentence in a very long report—I do not apologise for repeating it—which states at paragraph 372:
	"Until we change our approach to criminal justice for vulnerable people convicted of petty crime we cannot begin to meet our positive obligations under Article 2 and meet our duty of care to them".
	Indeed, we cannot begin to be fair to those upon whom we place the responsibility of looking after people in a custodial situation. I believe that with the numbers of people being taken into custody and given the conditions in the prisons, it is well nigh impossible for the Government to state that the tragic events which we are discussing will not take place.
	Indeed, there has to come a time when the whole discussion about criminal justice policy is conducted in language other than that easily printed in the tabloid press. The major political parties in our country will have to stop competing with each other to see who can propose more and more custodial offences. We could run through them all but is it really sensible, bearing in mind all the social implications of the situation, to gaol a mother for not sending her child to school?
	It is the point raised in paragraph 372 concerning changing our approach to criminal justice that needs to be answered. When are we going to change our approach and not merely alter things at the margins but address the fundamental questions?

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, like everyone else who has spoken I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, for introducing the debate and for the powerful, lucid and well-informed way in which she approached the introduction to the debate. We are very lucky to have someone with her expertise introducing the debate. We are extraordinarily fortunate in being about to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who has been an outstandingly wise, courageous and independent inspector of prisons. My speech is simply an anti-climax to what he will tell us shortly. I shall be as brief as possible.
	First, I want to say something about the Joint Committee on Human Rights since I am the only Member in the House who was one of the founder members when Jean Corston became chair, at my nomination. I nominated her, although I am a Liberal Democrat, when she was the chair of the parliamentary Labour Party, much to the displeasure of some of my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place. I did so because I was convinced that she could perform that role in a committee not controlled by the Government in a way that was independent and fair, and she has done so. That was a remarkable achievement.
	I was on the committee when this inquiry began, but I had to leave under the rules, much to my dismay, before it was completed. There are some who believe that the Joint Committee on Human Rights should only deal with the scrutiny of legislation. Although I am a lawyer who might be tempted by that, this report shows the importance of inquiries of this nature that go well beyond simply the important scrutiny of legislation.
	I regard this report as a great state paper—it is no ordinary report—just as I regard the Government's response, disappointing though I believe it to be in the way it is expressed, to be also an important state paper. I extract from the report a number of propositions, and I doubt whether the Minister would disagree with them, but I will state a few to see whether she does. It is not always clear from the report whether those who wrote it agreed with them.
	First, when the state takes away the liberty of an individual and places her or him in custody, it assumes full responsibility for protecting that person's human rights. Secondly, the report is founded on the idea that each and every death in custody is a death too many. Thirdly, many of those who die in state custody have been convicted of no criminal offence and are held on remand either in prison or in police custody, or are detained under the Mental Health Act. Fourthly, most of those entering custody are extremely vulnerable people. Many who die in custody are young; and most who die in custody are vulnerable or sick with histories of mental illness or drug and alcohol problems.
	Fifthly, by taking people into custody the state takes upon itself a particular duty of care because of that vulnerability and a special duty to ensure their protection and uphold their human rights. Sixthly, many people are detained, especially in prisons, who simply should not be there, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, emphasised. Seventhly, the problem of self-inflicted deaths in custody cannot be considered in isolation from prison overcrowding, sentencing practice and the availability to sentencers of alternatives to custodial sentences. The Government's response is particularly disappointing in the way that it approaches overcrowding. Eighthly, in the long term, sustainable solutions to the problems of deaths in custody can only be achieved in the context of increased resources and a reduction in the number of prisoners and other detainees held in the UK.
	When I last had direct experience as special adviser to Roy Jenkins in the Home Office in the mid-1970s, he was horrified at the prospect that we would have 45,000 people remanded in custody in the English and Welsh Prison Service. Looking back, those must have been halcyon days. If he were alive today, he would be quite horrified.
	Seven months ago, Mr Gil-Robles, the European Commissioner for Human Rights, produced a report that only the Government would have seen. It was produced in November, but highly unusually it was delayed for seven months. In my bleakly pessimistic view of the way in which politicians behave, I suspect it was delayed for electoral reasons. I commend that report to the House, because it emphasises with even greater feeling than the feeling of the Joint Committee on Human Rights the perfectly disgraceful system that we are now debating.
	I mention one or two of the points and suggest that your Lordships read it at your leisure.
	I suggest that noble Lords take a look particularly at what Mr Gil-Robles says about the detention of juveniles and young offenders. He points out that we have among the highest rates of juvenile detention in western Europe, that the high level appears to suggest a lack of suitable alternatives, and that the psychiatric care of juveniles—like that of women and other prisoners—is deplorable.
	If it were the Russian report, not the UK report, we would all say "Of course" about what it says on overcrowding, but that it is our own country makes me deeply ashamed of where we are. Gil-Robles says that overcrowding is the greatest single difficulty. A 50 per cent increase in the prison population over the past decade has resulted in the UK having the highest rates of detention in western Europe—around 140 per 100,000 in comparison, for example, to 93 in France and 98 in Germany. He then points out the terrible consequences of the overcrowding, and says that there are only two possible solutions—a reduction in the number of detainees, or an increase in the detention estate and resources available for its administration. He says that he much prefers the former.
	Then Gil-Robles looks at psychiatric care, especially of disturbed women, and finds breaches of Article 3 of the European human rights convention. He also then points to other defects, such as the absence of private visits, which more civilised regimes permit.
	The report is wholly devastating. It is by a wholly independent European observer appointed by the Council of Europe to look at human rights across Europe. I very much hope that the Government, having looked at it for seven months—as they must have done, as it was given to them in November—will not delay until August before producing a full response, certainly not to the part of the report that I have mentioned. Six months is far too long in which to reply to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and it will be much longer if one adds to that the Gil-Robles report.
	I made eight prison visits in my time. I well remember going to Parkhurst prison and being horrified to discover that, in the view of the governor, a very large proportion of its prisoners should have been in special and secure hospitals and not in prison at all. The prison staff despair. As I read the report, there is no energy behind the idea that we must take out of prison and into hospital the very large number of mentally disturbed prisoners, so that they can be cared for not by the health service in prison, but by specially qualified staff in hospitals. I do not read the report as indicating a wholehearted approval of that either.
	Finally, I ask the Minister whether she agrees that our civilised Home Secretary should give himself the performance target of reducing the prison population by a third during the lifetime of this Government. That seems a modest proposal. Can the Home Office also take steps with the trade unions and the Department of Health to ensure that those who are mentally disordered or disturbed are able to be transferred into hospitals and out of prisons?

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, like all those who have spoken, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness for posing the Question, which is one of extreme importance. I am also very grateful for the anticipation about what I might say, but that does not reduce my nervousness or my asking to be forgiven for being so presumptuous as to speak so soon after being introduced.
	As I do so, I hear again the ringing tones of my prep school cricket master warning me quite correctly that, if I did not learn to play myself in before trying to hit every ball for six, I would never make a batsman. I realise that I have not given myself much time to play myself in to the ways of this House—to which I feel immensely honoured to have been appointed—but, before the inevitable rattle of ball on stumps, I wonder whether I could be allowed to explain my reasons for my rashness.
	Very soon after I was appointed Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons in 1995, I realised that there was a large number of people in this country who not only cared deeply about the conduct of imprisonment, but tried their hardest in many and various ways to improve the treatment of, and conditions for, prisoners. There were also in this House many Members who already knew much more about the treatment of prisoners than I would ever know and that it would be wise of me to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest their deliberations, because, taken collectively, they added up to a considerable agenda for improvement.
	Moreover, there was one person who not only felt deeply and tried to bring about improvement, but who invariably spoke words of great wisdom in this House. I refer to my noble friend Lady Stern, in whose name this Question stands and who, less than three weeks ago, did me the great honour of being one of my supporters when I was introduced. Soldiers are taught to obey orders. So when my noble friend told me that she had tabled a Question on which I was qualified to speak, I dared not disobey.
	In preparing to speak, I became even more aware of a priceless asset that all Members of this House enjoy. I refer to the friendliness, helpfulness and efficiency of every single member of its staff and I am glad to have this opportunity of thanking them for the warmth of their welcome and the readiness of their support and advice.
	I read this excellent report with great interest, but also with a sense of déjà vu. It is wide, it is broad in its coverage, it is detailed and it is humane. But, unlike the report, I shall confine my remarks to deaths in prison, not police, custody.
	In 1998, I was invited by the then Minister for prisons and the then director-general of the Prison Service to undertake a thematic review of suicides in prison, which in 1997 had reached the record total of 68 in a prison population of just under 65,000. During the course of my work, I visited the United States, which I had been told had succeeded in reducing suicides in prison from figures approximate to, or worse than, our own, to an average of five per year in federal prisons, which had an average population of 123,000, and two per year in the New York prisons, which were the only others that I visited, with an average population of 23,000.
	When I looked into the reasons why that had happened, it was clear that the key was an attitude that I used as the title of the report that I published in 1999, Suicide is Everyone's Concern—by which was meant that everyone in the penal system, from Ministers down through staff and including prisoners, had a role to play in the process. That was reflected in two ways.
	First, in federal prisons, the Minister of Justice and, in the case of New York, the mayor, required that on their desks on Monday mornings should be a report detailing not only who had committed suicide in the previous week, but who had been prevented from committing suicide, by whom and how. That ensured that every person in the penal system knew of the close personal interest in the problem of the person at the top.
	Secondly, every incident was treated as a mental health aberration. That is not to say that it was evidence of mental disorder, but that it should be treated in a mental health context. That was done, first, by attaching every prison to either a psychiatric hospital or a hospital with a psychiatric unit, so that secondary help was immediately available. Secondly, a psychiatric nurse was on duty throughout the 24 hours in every prison. Thirdly, operational staff were taught to identify evidence of mental distress and describe it in terms that a psychiatric nurse could understand.
	Finally, numbers of prisoners were trained as "observer aides", paid 50 cents an hour and encouraged not just to identify mental distress but to look out for the minutiae which, all too often, are the triggers of tragic events and frequently will escape the notice of busy staff in overcrowded conditions—the letter, the visit or the telephone call that either did not happen or went badly. I recommended that this practice should be adopted, particularly in our busy, overcrowded and over-stretched local prisons, in which the majority of suicides take place.
	This is where my spirit of déjà vu comes in because, as in Volume I, I made many recommendations and I recognise some of them in this excellent report. As an aside, I also used my report to introduce what I called the "healthy prison concept" as a way of judging the success of prisons. The first of the four tests is that everyone is, and feels, safe, and the second is that everyone is treated with respect as a fellow human being. Both of those tests have echoes in the human right to life.
	I recognised much of the oral evidence in Volume II because many of the people gave evidence to us. We also spoke to families and to the successors to those in positions at the time. I particularly wish to pay tribute to the distinguished co-director of the charity Inquest, Deborah Coles, who is tireless, not only in bringing examples of bad practice to the notice of the public, but also in supporting the families of victims.
	In the Government's response, I recognised the acceptance of the report. My report was publicly accepted by the then Home Secretary, who accepted its recommendations as well. The new Director-General of the Prison Service at the time, now the chief executive of the National Offender Management Service, Martin Narey, said that, in future, he would make the prevention of suicide his first priority.
	I do not suggest for one moment that it is possible to prevent every suicide in prison, nor do I discount the efforts of the Prison Service to do something about the problem or the devotion of the staff, which has already been mentioned. Nor do I ignore the warning of the distinguished director of the Prison Reform Trust, Juliet Lyon, that some of the practices in some states in America are in breach of human rights. But if this practice in America were able to reduce the figures to approximately, or less than, 8.6 per 100,000 in the population of England and Wales, which it is today, there seems little reason why, if applied in the prisons, it should not contribute to reducing the figure from 146 per 100,000, at which it stood last year, or the current key performance target of 129 per 100,000 over three years.
	I hope that the Minister will agree that when she looks at the Question posed by my noble friend she will also agree to look again at the recommendations accepted, but not implemented, by her predecessor six years, and more than 560 self-inflicted deaths in custody, ago.

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all Members of your Lordships' House when I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on a superb maiden speech. It was moving, profound and impressive and I hope that much of what he said will be taken up by the Government and that the Minister will respond to it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, had an immensely distinguished military career and made an extraordinary contribution as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. Noble Lords will remember the wonderful moment when he called off the inspection of Holloway prison because conditions were just too awful. The noble Lord has been brave, consistent and, for many years, has pointed out to us what we can do to improve conditions in our prisons and to stop the appalling rate of deaths in custody in our country. I am sure that what he has said today is just a taste of things to come.
	I too wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, on initiating this debate in the wake of the Joint Committee's excellent and very disturbing report which I spent much of our recent Recess reading. My interest in deaths in custody comes largely from my interest in mental health in prisons.
	I have several interests to declare. I am a former chief executive of the King's Fund and an adviser to the trustees of the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health.
	In my time chairing an NHS trust in central London—Camden and Islington Community Health Services NHS Trust—I was involved in a variety of diversion schemes away from prison into the mental health system. We also carried out an experiment with prison link workers run by the Revolving Doors Agency to see whether link workers could make a difference by getting those in custody to get practical support from police, health, social and housing services. That was to ensure that they were in touch with local services as they went into custody—and, most importantly, when they came out—and to play an advisory and supportive role for up to two years, mostly after release.
	The evaluation published in 2003 funded by the King's Fund, of which I was then chief executive, demonstrated a major improvement in the health of those who had link workers attached to them. Thirty-six per cent of the clients had GP mental health assessments and relevant treatment; 29 per cent of all clients were provided with services for drug addiction and alcohol issues; and 15 per cent of the clients still in prison were referred to drug services by the link workers.
	Why do I raise that in this debate? I raise it because in most of the cases of deaths in custody that we know about the prisoners had no such links. Most had no link worker staying with them from the time of arrest and most were in real despair, disorientated, terrified, vulnerable and alone and many had diagnosable mental illness to boot. Their basic rights to proper care were ignored or compromised.
	The most recent Prison Reform Trust set of statistics—I am immensely grateful to the trust and to Inquest for the help that they have given to many noble Lords, I suspect, for this debate—tells us that the number of women in prison has more than doubled over the past 10 years. There has been a very slight decline over the past 12 months, but what is terrifying—the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has already mentioned this—is that 14 per cent of suicides in prison in 2004 were committed by women when they make up only 6 per cent of the prison population.
	Most women are held for non-violent offences and the largest proportion is held for drug offences. To add to that, women in prison suffer from several mental health problems; two-thirds of them show symptoms of at least one neurotic disorder—depression, anxiety or phobias; more than half suffer from a personality disorder and half are on prescribed medications such as antidepressants or antipsychotics. The use of medication increases while they are in custody.
	To add to that, of all women sent to prison, 37 per cent say that they have attempted suicide at some time in their lives, while the incidence of self-harm is far greater among women than among men—some 30 per cent compared with 6 per cent for men. On average, each woman who injures herself does so five times compared with twice for men. Although women make up only 6 per cent of the prison population, they account for nearly half of all reported self-harm incidents. Meanwhile nearly two-thirds of them have a drug problem.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, has already raised the issue of young prisoners who are equally at risk, if not more so. We have debated in your Lordships' House the issue of Joseph Scholes and his tragic death. We can add to him Gareth Myatt, who died in Rainsbrook secure training centre after being restrained by three adult staff members. The lack of a homicide investigation into that death bears close examination as the restraint technique being used was called into question by the police when investigating his death. There was also Adam Rickwood, aged 14, who hanged himself at Hassockfield STC. There have been others, vulnerable children and young people who are known to self-harm, who nevertheless have killed themselves or who have died while in our care.
	Yet we seem to do very little about it. The number of 15 to 17 year-olds in prison has nearly doubled; and 28 children have died in penal custody since 1990, most by suicide but one following restraint.
	Only one quarter of children in prison at the end of March this year had been convicted of violent offences. Many, as we know, have a background of severe social exclusion, and of those of school age a quarter have literacy and numeracy levels of an average seven year-old.
	In the next group, the 16 to 20 year-olds, 85 per cent have a personality disorder; 10 per cent have a diagnosable psychotic condition such as schizophrenia; and the drug and alcohol dependencies are high. One could go on.
	That raises huge issues for us. I ask the Minister to answer some of the questions raised by other noble Lords but also the specific issues around restraint techniques after the deaths of Adam Rickwood and Rocky Bennett, who was detained under the Mental Health Act at the Norvic centre. He died while apparently being restrained by five people.
	Secondly, now that the NHS is at last providing health services in prisons, what can be done to improve the level of service that the NHS can provide, particularly in mental health? Prisoners are twice as likely to be refused treatment for mental health problems inside as they were outside.
	Thirdly, what can be done to make adequate secure provision available? In the Gorsuch study it was clear that when 114 women for Holloway were referred to secure hospitals half were turned down. Those who were rejected were more likely to have harmed themselves, suffered childhood abuse, committed serious offences or been violent or dangerous than those who were accepted by the secure hospitals. Surely, that is not a sensible way to run our services.
	Fourthly, what can be done to support prisoners when they come out? Immediately on release 75 per cent of them have no outside carers and the suicide rate on release is very high. Every year more than 50 prisoners commit suicide shortly after release. We know that link workers will make a difference in that area.
	Lastly, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said about the United States and argue that we could learn from the wonderful examples, particularly of organisations such as CASES or Family Justice where experienced, very skilled and highly qualified workers work with the most difficult prisoners and people who are detained but perhaps in hospital or in the community with great support. They do not tend to go down the line we go down in Britain with understaffing and where junior staff without adequate experience and support are given the task of looking after the most troubled and vulnerable prisoners.

Baroness Murphy: My Lords, I first add my welcome and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on his very powerful address. He will certainly be an asset in this House in this area and, I am sure, in many others. I also congratulate the Joint Committee on its very powerful report.
	I want to take noble Lords back to what Mr Blunkett said. He said:
	"You wake up and you receive a phone call telling you that Shipman has topped himself. And you think, is it too early to open a bottle?
	"Then you discover that everybody's really upset that he's done it. So you have to be very cautious in this job, very careful".
	Yes, Mr Blunkett, you do.
	Are the then Home Secretary's personal thoughts on the suicide of a multiple murderer of any relevance to this debate? I think they are, but before I wax on that point I should point out that I, like most, psychiatrists, have been clinically responsible for someone who died while detained under the Mental Health Act while in my care.
	I remember well the last time. It was the case of a sick old man who slumped into a psychotic, deluded depression after the death of his wife and his subsequent unwanted admission to residential care. He was admitted compulsorily to our acute unit because he did not want to come; he wanted to stay at home and die. He seemed to be doing very well and picking up after the treatment. One afternoon we discussed his going back to the care home soon and coming in daily to see how he was getting on.
	At 6 o'clock the next morning, he walked out of the ward, which was not locked, to his old home area and by 7 am he had thrown himself under a bus. I sat through the coroner's inquest and remember the distress of the bus driver, who had seen him coming towards him. Afterwards, the man's daughter said to me, "But we thought that he would be safe with you". The subsequent internal inquiry revealed a catalogue of simple errors—some of which, of course, were mine—but I hope that we put right the problems in our unit for future people of that description.
	What is it that connects Shipman and my patient with the difficult, despairing and often violent prisoners who so often figure in suicides and unexpected deaths in custody? I have now served on a number of public and private inquiries into serious and untoward incidents at special hospitals and closed psychiatric units of patients who were held in seclusion and those who were not. The Minister will well recall one year of both our lives given to one very public inquiry in Liverpool into the events at Ashworth Hospital. Since then, I have had much more experience of inquiries—in fact, so much experience that I have given up doing them, because I can now write the findings without hearing the evidence.
	All the findings are broadly the same. First, risk assessment is always poorly understood and either inadequately done or done by someone so inexperienced or ill-trained that it is meaningless. Secondly, crucial written or telephone information about previous behaviour is unrecorded by the institution; is buried beneath a pile of irrelevant information; or is not available out of hours, when the people who are caring for the person need it. Thirdly, the best information is available from relatives, close friends of the individual or fellow inmates, but no one has listened to them. No one has even thought to ask. In the case of offender institutions, there is often no way of conveying that information to anyone who seems to care.
	So often, relatives say, "We knew he was going to do it because he said so". Regrettably, in some institutions, staff attitudes are still a major problem. We have heard much praise today for the work that prison officers and police caring for people in custody do, and I have no doubt that that is right. But, I fear, staff who are responsible for observing a potentially suicidal person do not always consider it important if the person dies. They feel about their charges like Mr Blunkett felt about his: they do not feel that those individuals matter that much.
	How often have I heard at a coroner's inquest someone ask a prison officer, "How often was someone being observed?" The officer replies, "Oh, he was being observed every 15 minutes". That may be true, but was there a listening ear or a kind word offered at a crucial moment? Probably not. Alternatively, in psychiatric units, there is so often an attitude of completely mistaken liberalism: "Well, it's his decision, innit? They're free to come and go now; we leave it to people to make their own decisions about whether they stay or go". Both those attitudes override the primary duty of care.
	I do not know how common those attitudes are in prisons, but if the man in charge did not understand his duty to protect the lives of those in care, what chance for the prison officer working in some remote gaol? The emotional environment in which prisoners are contained is, in my view, bound to lead to deaths, as it does at present. We have heard about the physical isolation and design, of what can be unfriendly close surveillance and of means of suicide unwittingly made available. Those are important, but not the most important. The question is: can attitudes and risk assessment be improved with training? Yes, of course, but that will work only if governors, senior officers and senior police officers provide the role models that truly change attitudes.
	Finally, I comment on the obvious. The populations of prisons and psychiatric institutions overlap to such an extent that it sometimes feels pretty random in which one a troubled individual ends up. Many folk have experience of both. Sometimes I think that it depends on which estate you grow up and on how early you started drugs. The official line from everyone is that of course we must get seriously mentally ill people out of prison and into mental health care. That is absolutely true, but it is not happening very fast. There are not the resources from the health service and it will not provide a solution except to seriously psychotic prisoners. Two thirds of prisoners and young offenders have very marked psychiatric and mental health problems, emotional problems and personality difficulties. They simply will not get transferred. We must provide far better care in prisons and offender institutions.
	I strongly support the growth of NHS services but they are woefully inadequate. A registrar of mine at Guy's Hospital, on a scheme providing a placement for the assessment of prisoners going into Brixton, came back after his first day in a state of shock. He said, "Here we have on average an hour to make a first assessment of a patient in a hospital. I can spend as long as I want on the phone with relatives and get them in to see them quickly. I have five minutes to make an assessment of someone admitted to Brixton prison".
	The resources are grossly inadequate and certainly need improving. But we must also transform our own attitudes to what a prison should be like and how it should function. As long as prisons remain a punitive, alienating place it will surely be difficult to eliminate those essentially avoidable deaths.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, on securing this debate on the report of the Joint Committee. It is the first opportunity we have had since the general election to look at the tragedy of deaths in custody, though sadly Members in another place discussed the matter on at least four occasions during the first three months of this year.
	I also join in the warm congratulations expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on a notable maiden speech. He mentioned that he felt like somebody at the crease during a period at his private school. The noble Lord carried his bat with distinction and we look forward to seeing him at the crease on many occasions. That is not just a platitude such as one uses on these occasions; it is meant genuinely because we all have tremendous respect for the wonderful work that he did as Chief Inspector and very much look forward to his contributions to debates in your Lordships' House.
	My noble friend Lady Neuberger and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, mentioned the case of Joseph Scholes, which noble Lords discussed in April 2004. The Minister who replied on that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, dealt only with the measures taken by the Prison Service to prevent suicide and self-harm and not the wider question, which has preoccupied almost everybody who spoke in this debate today, of how to ensure that vulnerable people, especially children and women, are not given custodial sentences when they need treatment for mental illness or habitual substance abuse.
	The Joint Committee reiterates that inappropriate reliance on the prison system is at the root of many deaths in custody and urges the Government to develop workable alternatives for the many people in those categories. In particular, it wants the Sentencing Guidelines Council to issue guidance to the courts on the risk that defendants might harm themselves if they get a custodial sentence. The Government say that they have drawn that to the council's attention and comment that the subject might be dealt with as part of a general sentencing issues document planned for later this year. I acknowledge that the council is an independent body but has it reacted to those hints or indicated that it will do so? Whatever guidelines may be issued, if places in residential treatment centres do not exist, there will be no improvement.
	Henrietta Marriage, the head of Mind's legal department, told me this morning:
	"Our biggest complaint is that people with mental health problems had frequently asked for help before they get into the criminal justice system".
	Mind gets 600 to 700 calls a month from patients or their relatives to whom the NHS has failed to respond effectively. Frances Crook of the Howard League is particularly concerned about the lack of secure and semi-secure beds for mentally ill children. She told me of one young woman, who was sentenced as a child two years ago, but who is now in an adult prison. After all that time, they have been unable to find a place for her in secure accommodation.
	Any prison governor will tell you—we heard about the governor of Parkhurst—that up to 50 per cent of inmates, and more in some establishments, ought to be in secure hospitals if the places existed. I was reminded that Dr John Reed, the then Chief Medical Inspector, told the Health Select Committee five years ago that there were 500 people in prison healthcare centres who ought to be in the NHS. The situation may not be any better today. Although the chief inspector says in her annual report that the delay in transferring patients once they have been assessed has been reduced, there is still a bottleneck at the assessment stage. So there are still those 500 or more people in prison who ought not to be there at all.
	On drugs and alcohol, the Public Accounts Committee in another place examined the early lessons of the drug treatment and testing order. One of the apparent reasons for the high completion rate in Dorset—66 per cent compared with the national average of 28 per cent—was that all of the offenders were placed in hostels. I wonder whether the noble Baroness will draw any lessons from that on the availability of residential places in Dorset, as compared with the rest of the country.
	The noble Baroness told me in a letter on 26 May that in the whole of the country there are only 2,200 places in approved premises which are for all adult offenders on licences, community orders or on bail who present a high risk of harm. She has no idea how many of the residents in those places had drug or alcohol problems. There are also 2,414 places in residential treatment centres, which are specifically for adults with drug and alcohol problems, who are not necessarily offenders. Again, the noble Baroness could not give me any indication of the number of offenders being accommodated.
	Clearly, the number of residential places for adult offenders of all kinds in both types of establishment is seriously inadequate for the need. The courts are no doubt aware of the deficiency. Thus, they may tend to pass custodial sentences on people for whom it is grossly unsuitable.
	The lack of facilities for looking after severely damaged children is even worse and had been a matter for criticism for years before Joseph Scholes died. As usual, everyone said that a tragedy like that could never be allowed to happen again. Yet, as we have heard today, three more children have died since Joseph Scholes. The Government say in the response to the Joint Committee's report that the Youth Justice Board now has the power to allocate trainees serving detention and training orders to a wide range of accommodation and that that will be extended to open local authority accommodation. When will that proposal be implemented? What has been the outcome of the board's exploration of the development of intermediate units for juvenile offenders who require intensive support, within available resources? That is a familiar phrase: how can they do that if they are not being given any additional money?
	The prison ombudsman was asked to conduct inquiries into all recent prison suicides, including that of Julie Walsh who is the sixth woman to die at HMP Styal. I echo the tributes that have been paid to Deborah Coles for the wonderful work that she does in bringing these matters to the public attention. The inquest found that a contributory factor in the death of Julie Walsh was the failure of the nurse to secure the medication, so that Julie got at the trolley and took an overdose.
	I dare say that Ministers will be looking nervously at the case of Giles Van Colle whose parents are claiming damages from Hertfordshire police for its failure to protect him from a known risk. If Article 2 of the Human Rights Act can be used in that way—there are many references to the article, which deals with the right to life in this report—the next of kin of prisoners whose suicides were preventable might be able to bring proceedings against the Prison Service. The Government should take measures to avoid that. They say that there is a range of improvements to encourage drug users into treatment and other interventions before, during and after a custodial sentence, although none of those mentioned is based on residential treatment. They all seem to be concerned exclusively with drugs, as is usually the case, and not with alcohol. Does the drugs intervention programme, mentioned in the response to paragraph 180 of the report, have an alcohol component? If not, is there any equivalent that does address alcohol problems?
	Clearly, Mr Shaw would be able to look at the whole pattern of deaths, and I hope the Minister can confirm that his inquiries are to be given a statutory basis in the NOMS Bill, as they were in the Bill that had to be dropped because of the election. The Prison Service does not routinely collect and analyse factors in the aetiology of prison suicides, including mental health and substance abuse histories of the victims. The Government told the Select Committee that this would be difficult to do reliably. I am sure Stephen Shaw will pick up that thread, and be able to look at those and other factors that may be important as predictors. He would also be able to consider whether any of the people who killed themselves ought to have been in other institutions.
	There is a great deal more that ought to be said about these problems, but time is at an end. In view of the interest that has been shown on all sides of the House, I suggest the Minister publishes a report dealing not only with the points that have been raised here this afternoon, but updating the public on the progress that has been made with the many initiatives referred to in the Government's response to the Select Committee, including the task force, and also the Gil-Robles report, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lester.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, for bringing this important debate to the Floor of the House.
	I am aware that it is a convention of the House that the maiden speaker should be congratulated only by the following speaker, but, on this of all subjects, I forecast that the noble Lord will deserve congratulations not only on his first but on his 100th time of speaking on this specialised subject. He has certainly set himself a high standard to go on with. He is also to be congratulated on increasing by 100 per cent the representation in your Lordships' House of the regiment in which I was privileged for a short time to serve.
	The contributions by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, have indeed set the scene for this important debate, which occurs with sad regularity in one form or another in this House and the other place. For example, in October last year, the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, tabled an Unstarred Question on women in prisons. I and many of your Lordships spoke in that debate, and it raised many of the issues that have been or will be dealt with here today.
	The report from the Joint Committee has provoked a huge response from the many interest groups, such as the Prison Reform Trust, the Howard League and INQUEST, which called it a damning critique of the current system. However, the report is not telling us anything new.
	Even one death in custody is one too many. The report itself states:
	"When the state takes away a person's liberty, it assumes full responsibility"
	for that person—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. To put it bluntly, the state has a responsibility, at the very least, for the survival of the prisoner. It is the state's role to protect him or her from other inmates, from actions of officers of the state and from harm that they may cause themselves.
	So, the Government must be held accountable for these deaths and must act in a targeted and constructive way to ensure that the number of such deaths does not continue on its upward spiral.
	After the report came out, a Home Office spokeswoman said:
	"All of the government agencies . . . are already working very closely together to tackle this problem, which is seen as one of the most serious problems facing the custodial services".
	Those are worthy and pious words, but what progress are we seeing?
	Inquest has provided short notes on two recent inquests: those on Julie Walsh and Paul Day. The case of Julie Walsh was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. In the case of Paul Day, the inquest found, inter alia, that the communication between prisons concerning procedures and transfers was inadequate; that he suffered constant verbal abuse for the last 51 days of his life; and that, although he was on suicide watch, neither management nor staff on the segregation unit understood the meaning of "frequent, irregular checks". That was the point on which the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, spoke.
	In the case of Julie Walsh, a drug addict who died in 2003, the inquest found that the Prison Service had failed to implement the recommendations made the previous year by Anne Owers, the prison inspector, that,
	"as a matter of urgency, a proper detoxification regime should be put in place".
	The present system of inquests is not perfect. It can address only individual cases, and its findings are delayed. But the findings of those inquests, especially where they are critical of procedures, must be taken seriously by the Government. How does the Minister feel that the changes made to the inquest system are addressing the problems? Does the system need further reform? It is clear that the Government need to understand why such deaths are occurring and to take dramatic action to remedy the situation.
	The Prison Reform Trust, when commenting on the report, stated that,
	"with one person taking their own life every four days, on average, in prison urgent action across government is long overdue . . . there is a need for a culture of change in our jails that focuses on reducing distress and promoting the well-being of prisoners".
	However, it is hard to see how the culture can be changed with gaols so overcrowded that they are unable to meet the specific needs of those who are depressed, ill, troubled or in need of particular care, a point made by many noble Lords in the debate. What are the Government doing to help such people, and what is the continuing policy on prison overcrowding in general? Do the Government accept that that problem is one of the causes of death in custody? What will the Government do to implement best practice in all prisons, which the report states would go some way towards ensuring respect for the human rights of prisoners and detained mental health patients? The sad fact is that prisons do not win votes, but will the Minister tell the House how the Government intend to follow the advice of the report?
	Finally, I should like to say that the report also highlights the plight of the families of those who die in custody. In allowing such deaths to occur, the state is failing not only that person but their family and friends. In the debate on women in prisons held in October last year, it was pointed out how particularly vulnerable women prisoners were in that respect. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, on speaking in depth on the subject. I thank also my noble friend Lord Bowness, who in a very brief speech made some moving points.
	Women prisoners in England and Wales have an average of 2.1 children. On that account, they are particularly disrupted by churning; that is, the practice of switching prisoners around to make room for remand prisoners to be close to their court of appearance. The effect on women prisoners and their families requires little imagination. I ask the Government to confirm that they follow the progress being made in other countries, of which I have two examples. In Russia, mothers of children under the age of 14 who are convicted of all but the most serious offences are routinely given suspended sentences until the child reaches the age of 14. In Germany, women and their children are housed under curfew in units attached to prisons but located outside the prison gates.
	In conclusion, I congratulate the members of the committee on an admirable job on a difficult subject. I hope that all their work will not be in vain and that the Government will implement many of their suggestions. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is a singular privilege to reply to the debate, properly tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. As soon as I took up the mantle of this new job as Minister of State for the Criminal Justice System and Offender Management, I was confident that the noble Baroness would take the earliest possible opportunity to bring forward such a debate and that she would be joined in quick measure by the noble Lord who has made one of the most remarkable maiden speeches that we have been privileged to hear for a very long time. I commend him for living up to the expectation of all those who have been able to hear his speech.
	The issues we are debating today are of the utmost importance. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that on taking up office I have done two of the things he exhorted Ministers responsible for this agenda to do; namely, to have on my desk every morning the number of people who have committed suicide and the number of people that we have in our prisons—and I have asked for the number of attempts that have been made to be there too. I can reassure the noble Lord and the House that the Government take this issue very seriously indeed. One death in custody, of whatever nature, is one death too many.
	There is probably no area of government where human rights are more crucial to citizens than when they are being detained in the care of the state, whether in prison, a police cell, detained under the Mental Health Act or elsewhere in an institution. It is therefore fitting that the Joint Committee on Human Rights should scrutinise this area and the Government are grateful for the thorough and constructive report that the Joint Committee has produced. I add my voice to all of those who have commended the Joint Committee and its chairman, who is likely soon to join us, the noble Baroness—as she soon will be—Lady Jean Corston.
	We all know that there is no simple formula for keeping safe those held in state care. The committee recognises that there are many complex issues, not least the very nature of the population in custody. Research over the past decade has indicated that detainees are particularly vulnerable to suicide due to the high incidence of previous suicidal behaviour, mental illness, substance misuse and previous physical and sexual abuse. These are matters which a number of noble Lords have rightly highlighted, of whom my noble friend Lord Judd, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Murphy, are but a few.
	Detainees, of course, also experience traumatic life events and a loss of social support, compounded by entering custody, losing contact with family and friends and adjusting to life inside. So entry to custody may therefore confirm an individual's feeling of being trapped in a hopeless situation from which he or she—literally—cannot escape.
	I take very seriously the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that we have to consider the whole criminal justice policy area and take a holistic approach towards the way in which we respond to these issues. If one looks at the steps that the Government have taken, I can assure the noble Lord that that is precisely what we have tried to do.
	I know that time is extremely short and so I shall concentrate primarily on deaths in prison, while by no means underestimating the difficulties that we experience with deaths when under probation supervision, in police custody, in immigration detention and in secure hospitals.
	Although the Government have done much work in this area already, in no way do we feel that we are there or even half way there. Much of the good work to which I shall refer has been undertaken within the several separate agencies caring for individuals detained in custody. We now aim to work towards effectively combining these strategies—for example, by ensuring, through NOMS, that the National Probation Service's strategy on sudden death and self harm dovetails meaningfully for offenders with prison safety, custody and the YJB safeguarding strategies.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for correctly outlining the commitments that the Government have made in relation to this area. I should say to him that yes, we have read the report, we meant what we said and we will follow through on those matters.
	Ultimately the aim has to be better use of the new sentencing policy and a fundamental change in the way in which we care for those coming into contact with the criminal justice system—and before they come into contact with the criminal justice system—who have mental health, drug and alcohol problems, not to mention those with more-difficult-to-pin-down, but equally problematic, social problems.
	More than 130,000 individuals are received into prison establishments each year, with approximately 76,000 individuals detained at any one point. At the moment, about 1,500 prisoners are identified as being at particular risk of suicide and/or self-harm in any given month. Although identifying such prisoners is exceptionally challenging, the real challenge in prison is to provide sufficient support and a decent regime that enables the overall population to feel safe, be healthy, and feel that they have a future—the building blocks of safer custody and reducing reoffending.
	The Joint Committee's report supports the notion, already central to the Prison Service's strategy, that suicide prevention cannot operate in isolation but must be embedded in the culture of an establishment at every level and in every discipline. In that way, distress—identified by Dr Alison Liebling of the University of Cambridge as associated in a statistically significant way with average suicide rates in a prison—is minimised for all prisoners, not only those identified as "at risk". It is in that sense, if I can answer the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, that the word "rare" is used.
	There has been a recent and welcome reduction in the number of self-inflicted deaths in prison. There have been 27 so far this year, compared with 45 at this point last year. But we seek further drastic reductions. The key intervention being introduced in public and private prisons alike is the new care-planning system for at-risk prisoners, known as ACCT—Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork. ACCT aims to improve care by introducing flexible care-planning that is prisoner-centred, supported by improved staff training in assessing and understanding prisoners at risk of suicide and/or self harm. That involves a considerable commitment to supporting staff in that difficult and sometimes disturbing work.
	I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that I understand her questions on risk assessment. I understand particularly well, after our interesting year spent in Liverpool, that the ACCT programme is aimed directly at ensuring that that risk assessment, which is so critical to the proper management of such cases, actually takes place. I also endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. Having a listening ear, giving a gentle word, is of critical importance. When asked what makes the difference between a good carer and a poor carer, many prisoners will respond, "It is someone who talks to you". That does not need money, but it does need a little care.
	The Prison Service's suicide prevention strategy seeks to establish suicide prevention as a current through every Prison Service policy area, including resettlement, detoxification, staff care and welfare, healthcare, purposeful activity, staff and management outlooks and built environment improvements. It meshes into the Prison Service's commitment to treat all prisoners with decency and dignity and to improve the safety and well-being of all who live and work in prisons. The strategy also, of course, seeks to provide the best possible care to those whom we identify as at risk.
	I am very conscious that I have little or no time left to respond to all the issues. They are issues of critical importance, and I absolutely understand the anger and passion expressed by my noble friend Lord Judd and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
	Time is pressing, but I shall undertake to reply to the questions put by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I hope that the House will forgive me for not having had quite the opportunity to reply on all the issues, as I should very much have liked to do. But I promise the House that the energy and vigour that many noble Lords in this debate would like to see addressed to the issue of offender management will be given to it by this Government while I remain Minister and responsible for it.

House adjourned at half past five o'clock.